{ELLE ILALIAD LEELA R ED EES 


* THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, & x 
= ae Princeton, N. J. 


» 4a * a ‘ 


-* P aN ~ * 
pant. gests, Gt? FY 


* * 
td 


THE HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY 


OBvus 
THE UNITED STATES 


NORTH AMERICA, 


From the earliest period to the present time, comprising 
civil and political History ; Geography, Geology, Mineralo- 
gy, Zoology and Botany; Agriculture, Manufactures, and 
Commerce ; Laws, Manners, Customs and Religion; with a 
Topographical description of the Cities, Towns, Sea-ports, 
Public Edifices, Canals, &c. Edited by 


JOHN HOWARD HINTON, A. M. 


Assisted by several Literary Gentlemen in America and 
England. Illustrated with a series of Views, drawn on the 
spot expressly for this work, exhibiting both the majestic 


scenery and grand National Improvements of this flourishing | 


Republic, and Maps of every State in the Union, carefully 
revised to the present year. 

This work forms two handsome volumes, demy quarto, 
comprising upwards of 1000 pages of letter-press, and nearly 
100 engravings, inclusive of maps, highly finished on steel, 
by the first artists. Price, $30. 


RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORK. 
FROM BRITISH AND FOREIGN JOURNALS. 


** The above publication is well imagined, and meets the 
exigencies of the literary world on this subject. As far as 
we can judge by the first number, it is not a mercenary en- 
terprise, but a work honorably undertaken and conducted 
with ability. We await, with impatience, the progress of a 
work, the commencement of which promises much, and which 
may exercise some influence over the future destinies of Eu- 
rope. A more auspicious time could not have been chosen to 
develope the principles of liberty, which form the vitality of 
states and the prosperity of nations.’’—Revue Encyelope- 
dique, Paris. | 
_ ‘*As to the literary part of the work, Mr. Hinton’s name 
is a sufficient pledge for the respectability’ot the execu- 
tion.’’— Eclectic Review. 

‘¢ The descriptive portion is written with ability, and com- 
prises much information within a comparatively small com- 
pass.”’—New Monthly Magazine. 


. 


ADVERTISEMENTS. 


‘«Justice cannot be done to the American states, without 
the possession of qualities for which historians have not been 
ordinarily famed. Such an individual, we afe happy to know, 
the editor of this work is ; and we speak without hesitation 
when we say, that it is worthy of patronage; and will amply 
repay for the cost of its purchase, and the time consumed in 
its perusal.”’— Baptist Miscellany. 

FROM AMERICAN JOURNALS, 


«¢ A most beautiful work, published in London, entitled 
«THe History AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED STATEs,”’ 
has recently made its appearance in thiscountry. It is dedi- 
cated, by permission, to Washington Irving, and is equally 
honorable to the country and its most classic writer. 

We cannot do less than recommend the labors of the au- 
thor, Mr. Hinton, which have been so successfully exerted 
to do honor to our country, to the patronage of its liberal citi- 
zens.’’— Globe. : 

“‘ We do not know of any series of engravings that is so 
comprehensive of the various public and private residences 
in this country, as are contained in this work ; and we be- 
lieve few of our most ‘‘home travelled” citizens had any 
idea that their own country presented so much for admira- 
tion in the pictoral way, as Mr. Hinton has most satisfacto- 
rily proved to. them that it does. The historical portions of 
the volumes, so far as we can judge, are derived from good 
sources, and the statistical and topographical divisions are 
stored from authentic documents, or from information derived 
through inquiries of those who reside in this country, and 
from distinguished Americans in London, among whom was 
Washington Irving, to whom the work is dedicated. We 
are glad to see that the editor gives full credit to the various 
writers from whose labors he has derived materials for his 
volumes. This shows his candor, and gives authority to his 
work. 

The work is comprised in two handsome quarto volumes, 
commending themselves by the beauty of decorations, neat- 
ness of execution, and value of information, and we may add, 
the lowness of price, to the attention'and patronage of every 
American.”’— U. S. Gazette. 

BY THE SAME AUTHOR, 

The ACTIVE CHRISTIAN: aseries of Lectures, with. 
an introduction by the Rev. Ezra Stiles Ely, D. D. Price 
50 cents. 

The HARMONY of REVEALED TRUTH and HUMAN 
REASON: in Fourteen Essays. Price 75 cents. . 


‘> 


ee, ee 


ee a Se eh! 


THE WORK 


HOLY SPIRIT 


CONSIDERED 
* 


IN ITS RELATION TO THE CUNDITION OF MAN AND THE 
WAYS OF GOD: 


WITH 


PRACTICAL ADDRESSES TO A SINNER, 


ON THE PRINCIPLES MAINTAINED, 


BY 


JOHN HOWARD HINTON, A. M. 


WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND ADDITIONS, 


BY 


ISAAC TAYLOR HINTON. 


WILLIAM SANDS, RICHMOND; LINCOLN & EDMANDS, 
BOSTON; LEAVITT & CO.. NEW YORK; PERKINS, 
PHILADELPHIA; PLASKITT, & CO., BALTIMORE; 
HUBBARD & EDMANDS, CINCINNATI. 


1834, 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 
PREPACH iF cpirce ah tvs cael tidy raat eae Ee Bee VE 
INTRODUCTION. 

Cuap. IJ.—On the personality and divinity of the Ho- 
EGLROUG ae ta eto On ap Ghar ay mig wk 

II.—Of the influences of the Spirit on matter, 
intellect, and disposition . . . . . 8 

PART I. 


Or THE WorkK OF THE HOoLy Spirit in CONVERSION. 


Cuap. I.—The necessity of the work of the Spirit in 
Conversion;—The argument from the 
universality of Human Depravity . 20 


II.—The influence of the Holy Spirit in Con- 
version maintained—from the express 
connection of Conversion with Divine 
Prédpterminatinn: <2 ay ee} 24 


IlI.—The work of the Holy Spirit in Conver- 
sion;—The argument from its acknowl- 
edged influence in Sanctification . . 29 


IV¥.—The necessity of the work of the Spirit in 
Conversion ;—The argument from the 
universal experience of Christians . . 35 


yi CONTENTS, 


PAGE. 
Cuap.V.—The argument from the impossibility of 
otherwise rationally accounting for the 


* abt, aie os Oe hades Bee ay a ea eae 
Vi.—The argument from the express words of 
Seriptire OME ek eis ek eee eee 
™ 


VII.—The argument from the figurative expres- 
SIONS Of (SOriptyre oa) xsi coy Vem es eel se 


VIlI.—Objections answered. . . . .... 59 


IX.—Of the certain eflicacy of the Spirit’s influ- 
ence in conversion...) . 0 6 te 68 


PART II. 


Toe Worx or THE Hoty Spirit in CONVERSION, 
CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE CONDITION OF 
VL RT oy tp ilies Bes ee a Pe Ole ie ee Sae anee 


Cuar. I.—Of the structure and operations of the hu- 


Mian BME OSes a ls igs oh) na, Te 
II].—Definition of Terms . . . . >. . . 109 
Disposition, Inclination . . . . . 110 
POwer, ARIMGy 5. eat a ATO 
Freedom, or Liberty of moral rept Es 
Rectitide, Depravity © 2°. 2". 7. 420 


11I.—Whether man in his natural state has pow- : 
er to repent;—The argument from the 
matnre Of; the Case - ec" s) si, os oe ee 


1V¥V.—Whether, in the conversion of a sinner, 
power is imparted :—The argument from 
the work of the Spirit). . ... ... 127 


% CONTENTS. Vii. 
PAGE. 
Cuap. V.—Whether the possession of power is not in- 
volved in the praise and blameworthi- 
ness of actions:—The argument from 
the nature of sin 131 
VI.— Whether the possession of power is not im- 
plied in the divine commands :—The ar- 
gument from moral obligation . 139 


Vil.—Whether the possession of power be not 
implied in the distribution of rewards 
and punishments :—The argument from 
humanresponsibility . . . . . 


VUI.—Of the divine use of means independently 
of the Holy Spirit:—The argument 
from the limited communication of the 
Spirit Ry ar 

IX.— Whether the Holy Spirit is a gift of justice, 
or of grace :—The argument from the 
gracious and sovereign character of the 
Holy Spirit 


X.—Whether the ability of man is not main- 
tained in the holy scriptures :—The ar- 
gument from express words of sacred 
writ 


XI.—The argument from express words of scrip- 
ture continued 


XII.— The argument from express words of scrip- 
ture concluded» .) . «J. 


XII].—Whether the sentiment which ascribes 
power ta man does not pre-eminently 
humble the sinner and glorify God :— 
The argument from the tendency of the 
doctrine . ‘ 


144 


172 


184 


188 


199- 


225 


232 


if CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 


Cuap. XIV.—Whether the sentiment of man’s ability 
agrees with the actual exercises of his 
mind :—The argument from experi- 
ence ; 


XV.—Objections answered 
XVI.—The same continued 


XVII.—Considerations for those who may not be 
convinced 


XVIII.—Of the necesssity of the Holy Spirit as 
implying contrariety of disposition 


PART III. 


THE ASPECT OF THE Spirit’s WORK IN RELATION TO 
THE Ways OF Gop . . 


Cuap. I.—Of the ministration of the Spirit in answer 
LO PLAYED He Fis aia Ses tale teeth pe lod ies 


IIJ.—Of the ministration of the Spirit in his un- 
_ sought agency 


III.—Of the ministration of the Spirit as con- 
nected with the work of redemption 
generally. ii. Si 0nd iy ahh 


PRACTICAL ADDRESSES . 


314 


316 


329 


335 
339 


PREFACE. 


Tre controversies which at present exist respecting the 
operations of the Holy Spirit, and the frequently recurring 
demand for a work on this subject, prevent the necessity 
of offering any apology for the re-printing of the volume 
now presented to the public. 

The original design of the work, was to evince the con- 
sistency of the Spirit’s influence in conversion with the 
free agency of man and the responsibility of the sinner ; 
—to show not only the necessity of those influences, but 
the ground of that necessity. The position endeavored 
to be elucidated and sustained throughout the following 
pages, is, that the influences of the Holy Spirit are be- 
stowed to induce a holy disposition, and the consequent 
right employment of faculties already existing, and not to 
communicate capacity. Whether this view is not of high 
importance, and whether or not it is successfully main- 
tained, the reader will of course judge for himself. 

The absolute necessity of the operation of the Spirit in 
conversion, was expressly maintained in the work in its 


original form; but the circumstances of its publication in 


x PREFACE. 


England did not call for any extended argument on that 
portion of the subject. On this point the author observes, 
**The subject of this volume is not the whole work of 
the Spirit, but simply that work in the conversion of a 
sunner ; and this only in its relation to the condition of 
man, and the ways of God. The recollection of this 
may tend to prevent dissatisfaction that I have not asserted 
the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit; that I have 
not expatiated on the whole of his glorious work; and 
that I have not even entered into any detailed account of 
conversion itself. Upon all these points I believe I am 
truly ‘orthodox.’ ” 

In the present case, however, the extensive denial of 
the existence of any personal influence of the Spirit in 
conversion, rendered it necessary to enter more at length 
into the proof of that fundamental doctrine. No one can 
regret more than the writer, that this portion of the work 
should not have fallen into abler hands; but he rejoices in 
the assurance that the feebleness of the advocate will serve 
only to render more apparent the strength of the truth. 

It is but just to the author of the work, that the editor 
holds himself responsible for the Introduction, and for the 
first eight chapters of Part I, except such paragraphs as are 
thus marked [_ ]. 

It is hoped these pages may, by the blessing of God 
have some tendency to check the progress of error on the 
right hand and on the left. ‘The subject itself,” observes 
the author, ‘is one of infinite excellency, and one upon 


PREFACE. Xl 


which nothing can be wisely and seriously written, with- 
out being, under the divine blessing, conducive to good. 
Nothing can be more important than to have right views 
of the Holy Spirit’s work, and few things more necessary 
than to lead persons generally to a habit of vigorous and 
scriptural thought respecting it. I earnestly entreat those 
who peruse them, to read, not with the view of criticising 
the writer, or estimating his success as a controversialist, 
but with a desire to become thereby both wiser and better. 
That what I write may be adapted to this end, may God 
in mercy grant me the teachings of that blessed Spirit, of 
whose work I am about to treat! Whereinsoever I may 
err, either in sentiment or in spirit, may He graciously 
forgive! And the effort itself, with all its feebleness and 
imperfection, may he condescendingly own and accept, 
as a tribute from a grateful heart to the glory of his name, 
and as an instrument offered by a willing hand to the pro- 
motion of his cause.” 

That this effort has received the abundant blessing of 
God, the editer has, from his own knowledge, a most 
pleasing assurance: that the labors of his beloved relative 
may become more extensively useful than he had enter- 
tained any conception of, is the object alike of these co- 
operating exertions, and of hishumble but fervent prayers, 


P. S. It is possible, that from the similarity existing 
between some of the sentiments, and even, perhaps, in a 
few instances, the expressions, contained in this volume, 


Xil PREFACE. 


and those of some eminent American theologians of the 
present day, it may be surmised, (as indeed it has already 
been by one of the ablest of our periodical journals,) that 
the former resulted froma perusal of the writings of the lat- 
ter. Justice demands that the editor should state that he 
can vouch for the fact from his own knowledge, thatat the 
period when Mr. Hinton wrote this work, (in 1829,) he 
was not conversant with the writings of American theolo- 
gians of a later date than those of the justly celebrated Ed- 
wards. Whatever opinion may be formed of the following 
pages, they are the result of an independent mind, taking 
the sacred scriptures as the only and the sufficient rule of 
faith and practice. 


RicumMonp, May 28, 1834. 


THE WORK 


OF THE 


HOLY SPIRIT 


IN CONVERSION, 


INTRODUCTION. 


OF THE PERSONALITY, DIVINITY, AND GENERAL OPERA- 
TIONS OF THE SPIRIT, 


CHAP. I, 
Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 


OF the truths made known to us in Revelation 
none are contrary to the right exercise of human rea- 
son; many of them, however, are above its compre- 
hension: but this is equally the case in the book of 
nature ; and the man who denies the authority of Sa- 
ered Writ, is no more free from the necessity of be- 
lieving in the existence of facts the modus of which 
he does not comprehend, than the most devout be- 
liever in Christianity. Those who refuse to receive 
the plain testimony of Scripture, therefore, on the 
subject of the nature and character of the Deity, be- 
cause they do not understand how such things can be, 
are so far from being justified in appropriating to 

b 


2 PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 


themselves the epithet “‘rational,” that they stand 
self-convicted of adopting a course of reasoning re- 
specting the Deity, the very reverse of that of which 
they are conscious respecting themselves. This is 
true, at least of all those who admit the existence of 
the soul as an immaterial principle distinct from the 
body ; for who can apprehend the mode by which 
spirit acts upon matter, or in other words, how such 
a being as he finds himself to be can exist 7—If any 
of our readers should hesitate, then, to receive the 
testimony of Scripture concerning the Spirit of God, 
at leastlet him reflect that Revelation asks no greater 
stretch of his faith respecting the Deity, than his 
own consciousness demands and obtains from him 
respecting himself. Far from being contrary to 
what might reasonably be expected, the mystery 
which inspiration has suffered to remain on the 
subject of the Divine Nature, is perfectly analogous 
to that which pertains to allessences. ‘The partia: 
knowledge of the ancients led them to believe in 
‘the doctrine of four elementary substances; the more 
diligent and intelligent researches ofmodern science, 
have left it a mystery whether any elementary or 
simple substance exists. With so little knowledge 
as to the essential nature either of matter or of mind, 
jt isas unphilosophical as it is irreverent to disbe- 
lieve the facts stated by the Deity respecting his own 
being, because the method of their co-existence is 
beyond the limits of our comprehension. 

Retaining these general principles in our view, 
we shall take a brief glance, as introductory to the 


OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 3 


main design of this volume, at the Scripture testi- 
mony respecting both the prrsonaLity and DIVINITY 
of the spirit of Gop. 

In making use of the term PERSONALITY, we by no 
means intend to affirm that it either embraces all the 
ideas characteristic of, or excludes all ideas foreign 
from, the subject to which it is applied; still less do 
we adopt it as in itself authoritative, or from an 
overweening respect to ancient phraseology; but 
because we can find no one word so well adapted to 
concentrate our views on this subject. We will 
take this opportunity to state, what we trust will be 
apparent through the course of our work, that while 
we would avoid adopting either terms or ideas solely 
because’they,have been honored with the testimony of 
time and of eminent men, we would be equally re- 
mote from the childish vanity of using new expres- 
sions while those for ages in common use are far 
more correctly descriptive of truth, than any that 
have subsequently been invented by minds more 
characterized by vivacity of conception, than by pro- 
fundity of thought. 

1. That the Holy Spirit has personality, and is 
not merely an attribute descriptive of the power of 
God, must be inferred from the very title by which 
he is designated. Our Lord promised his disciples 
that he would “pray the Father and he should give 
them another Comforter.” John xiv. 16, 17. And 
again, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he 
shall teach you.” ver. 26.; the personal pronoun be- 
ing used, as in the following passages: “he shall tes- 

*B2 


4. PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 


tify of me;” when “he cometh, he shall not speak 
of himself;” ‘Ae shall glorify me.” John xvi. 7—15. 
It has been suggested, however, that it is a common 
poetical license among the inspired writers to 
personify the power of the Deity; and to some ex- 
tent this is true, but not in the gospels; the writings 
of John and the other evangelists do not partake of 
this character. If this should be further pressed, the 
objector will find himself silenced by the mode of 
expression adopted by Paul in Romans xv. 13—19. 
“Now, the God of hope fill you with all joy and 
peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope 
through the power of the Holy Ghost.” “Through 
mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spi- 
rit of God: so that from Jerusalem, and round about, 
unto Ilyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of 
Christ.’ Those who maintain that by the phrase, 
the Spirit of God, is designated only the power of 
God, are compelled for the sake of consistency, to 
translate these phrases “by the power of the power 
of God:” which is attributing a style of writing to 
the inspired penmen which it would disgrace the 
most incompetent of their uninspired opponents to 
be guilty of. Other passages of similar import 


might be adduced; but to the candid enquirer they 


are tnnecessary, and to any other they would be 
useless. 

2. The Spirit of God is evidently a person, from 
the characteristics attributed to him. We have al- 
ready seen that power has been attributed to the 
Holy Spirit; so also are grace, Heb. x. 29; truth, 


OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 5 


John xiv. 17; goodness, Heb. ix. 20, Psalm exliti. 10; 
glory, 1 Pet. iv. 14; holiness, throughout the New 
Testament. Now attridutes must be associated with 
some person, not with another attribute; thus, for in-— 
stance, we attribute goodness to God, and power to 
God: but we cannot attribute AR es to power, any 
more than power to goodness. 

3. That the Spirit of God ‘has personality, is ma- 
nifest from the acts said to be performed by him.— 
All the internal acts of mind are allotted to him, 
He is said to know, 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; to be pleased, 
Acts xv. 28; to be vexed, Isa. lxiii. 10; and to be 
provoked and grieved.—T he transitive acts are also 
attributed to the Spirit of God equally with the re- 
flective. He is declared to speak, John xvi. 13; Rey- 
ii. 7, and xxii. 17; Acts vu. 20, and x. 19; 1 Tim. 
iv. 1; to lead, Rom. viii. 14; to be a witness, Rom. 
viil. 16; to bestow gifts, 1 Cor. xii. 8—10; to work 
miracles, Rom. xv. 19; to sanctify, 1 Cor. il. 11; but. 
above all, to intercede, Rom. vill. 26. If any one 
who doubts the personality of the Spirit, will now 
allow himself to enquire, “ Had it been designed to 
represent the Spirit as a divine person, how would 
he have been spoken of?” we apprehend his scepti- 
cism on this point will find a satisfactory and speedy 
termination. But let us notice— 

4, In proof of the personality of the Spirit deriv- 
ed from acts said to be done against him, we might 
mention several passages; but we shall quote only 
one, because we deem that decisive; indeed, capa- 
ble alone of sustaining both the perponaay aud the 

Bd 


6 PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY 


divinity of the Holy Spirit, without adding any 

other argument whatever. “ Wherefore I say unto 

y _-you, all manner of-sin and blasphemy shall be for- 

“given unto men; but the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven untomen. And 
whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, 
it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” 
(Matt. xiii. 31 & 32.) No person who has any re- 
gard for common sense, will maintain that our 
Lord designed to state that all blasphemies should 
be forgiven, except those against the power of God; 
and viewing the Spirit as representing any other 
attribute of God, 1t is equally absurd to represent 
our Lord as saying that all blasphemies against the 
whole character of God should be forgiven, but that 
the blasphemy against one of his attributes, descrip_ 
tive of a portion of his character, should never 
be forgiven. There is no alternative but admitting 
the personality of the Holy Spirit. 

Other arguments might be adduced; but as the 
limits of this introduction do not admit of them, 
neither does the nature of the subject stand in need 
of them. We shall proceed, therefore, to notice 

The Divinity of the Holy Spirit. On this subject 
there has been but little controversy in modern times. 
The idea that the term, ‘the Holy Spirit,” alluded 
to Michael the Archangel, or some other created 
spirit, has been rarely held, and still more rarely 
propagated. It is only, therefore, necessary to men- 


uw 


Fe es ‘ s 
Te ¥ ; 
es ee pt? Sf 


OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. #3 


tion that both the names and the attributes of God are 
allotted to the Holy Spirit, in the sacred records. _ 
“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled ~ 
thine heart to lie to the Hae Ghost, and to keep bae'! < , 
part of the price of the land ? While it remained, — 
was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it 

not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived 
this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto 

- men, but unto God.” (Acts v. 3 & 4) “ Now, the 
Lord is that Spirit.” The moralattributes of Deity, 

as holiness, truth, &e., have already been proved to be 
attributes to the Holy Spirit, and the natural attri- 
butes are- not withheld from him. For instance, 
Kternity:— How much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered him- 
self without spot to God, purge your conscience 
from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. . 
ix. 14.) Omniscience:—“But God hath revealed 
them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth 

all things, yea, the deep things of God.” (1 Cor. 

li. 10.) And Omnipresence :—“ Whither shall I go 
from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy 
presence? (Psalm cxxxix. 7.) 


‘ suey 
Sh Ne 


S . INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


i CHAP; IT =: . 


ao oy the Influences of the Spirit on asascattee Intellect, 
and Disposition. 


The analogical methed of reasoning is, perhaps) 
at once the earliest and the safest to which the hu- 
man mind has recurrence. It is true it has been 
abused; but it is also true, that more practical good 
has been effected by it than by any other process.— 
We design to make tse of it in this chapter, in a 
manner, the correctness of which ean be objected to 
by no candid opponent.—Jf the action of the Spirit 
on matter, intellect, and disposition, in all other 
cases but that of conversion, be personal and effec- 
tual; then, by ajust and inevitable analogy, the work 

- of the Spirit in conversion must also be personal and 
effectual. 

1. In contemplating the operations of the Holy 
Spirit on matter, it is peculiarly interesting to ob- 
serve, that his agency in its formation is affirmed by 
the inspired historian in the very commerticement of 
his narration, ‘‘and the Spirit of God moved upon 
the face of the waters.” (Gen. i.2.) The same 
writer, in his unrivalled biography of the most pa- 
tient of men, also assures us, that “by his Spirit he 
hath gardished the heavens.” (Job xxvi. 13.) It 
was undeniably the same almighty agent, which 
was employed in effecting the various miracles, no 
less lovely in their manifestation of benevolence, 


Fa, 


ON MATTER, INTELLECT, AND DISPOSITION. 9 


than magnificent in their exhibition of power, which 
Were wrought by our Lord and his apostles; for, 
when these glorious effects had been attributed by 
the malignity of the pharisees to demoniacal influ- 
ence, our Lord charged them with blasphemy against 
the Holy Ghost; in which allegation there could be 
no possible propriety, unless the miracles thus at- 
tributed to Satan were the work of the Spirit— 
While on this point, we would urge on the minds 
of our readers, how nearly the sin of claiming that 
on which everlasting life and glory are made to de- 
pend, as the act of our own minds, unaided by any 
personal or effectual influence of the Spirit of God, 
may approximate both in its necessary influence on 
the heart, and in provoking the just displeasure of 
God, to that of the Jews who attributed his agency 
#n matter to Satan. The difference is only this— 
they attributed his glorious operations to an evil spirit 
—the upholders of this doctrine to evil men. I will 
not say the Holy Spirit is eguadly, but he is tmmeasur- 
ably dishonored in both; and the danger is too great 
- not to make every thinking mind, much more every 
sincere christian, consider most deliberately and so- 
lemnly before he adopts sentiments which may, by 
any possibility, lead him to the commission, or even 
lay-him open to the imputation, of such a spiritual 
atrocity. ” 

It is presumed that none will attempt to maintain 
that efficacy existed in the clay which our Lord laid 
on the eyes of the blind man; surely in this case 
the agency of the Spirit was equally personal as in 


10 INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


that of the resurrection of Lazarus, when the voice 
of our Lord summoned him to life. We beg it may 
not be imagined that we uphold the sentiment that 
the word of God is no more adapted to convert the 
sinner, than clay is to restore the sight 5 the reverse 
will be made apparent in the latter portion of this 
volume. We are not now speaking of the nature 
of the Spirit’s influence in conversion, or even of its 
necessity ; but only to this point, that the employ- 
ment of means, in the case alluded to, in no way 
obscures the personality or efficiency of the action 
of the Spirit. 

2. The influences of the Holy Spirit on the human 
intellect are no less wonderful in their character, and 
more interesting in their results, than those we have 
already been contemplating. These influences are 
evident in the communication to the mind of facts 
the knowledge of which had been lost, as well as 
in the revelation of those which, through a long se- 
ries of ages, were yet to come; in the instructing 
the minds of the inspired teachers, both of the old 
and new dispensations in the truths of God; in im- 
parting the capability of speaking in languages of 
which the individuals thus inspired had previously 
been entirely ignorant; and in various other methods 
which our present purpose will not permit to be 
entered upon. In some cases, the form in which 
these communications respecting the past or future 
history of the world wascommunicated, is not stated ; 
and where this is the case, to attempt to supply it by 
conjecture is, perhaps, both irreverent and vain,— 


be eer a 
wet ie 

nares 3 
= 


* > ° wet Ss o mig : 
ON MATTER, INTELLECT, ‘AND DISPOSITION. 11 


The prophetic intimations were chiefly given 

by the medium of visions impr essed by the Spirit 

on the imaginative faculty,» some 

body was asleep, and other times in its waking» 
hours. These visions, however, were generally fol- 

lowed by explanations conducted either with an 

audible voice, or by. an» intellectual process of 
which we are ignorant, but which produced the same 

results. 

The gift of tongues is, perhaps, though not the 
most important, yet the most striking of all the 
operations of the Spirit on the intellect of man. Far 
from consisting in the uttering of a few syllables or 
words in forms of sound never before heard of, as 
now practised under the sanction of some excellent, 
but most unhappily deluded men, the gift of tongues 
was a miracle which enabled its possessor to make 
full use of the whole range of a language or lan- 
guages well known to thousands or millions in the 
vicinity of the abode of the favored minister of. the 
gospel. How the human mind can be capable of 
such an instantaneous acquisition of knowledge, of 
such a character and extent, is indeed a mystery; but 
the fact is on that account neither less true, nor its 
existence less credible. , 

The last kind of operation of the Spirit on intel- 
lect which it will be needful at this time to noticatt 
that of his teaching truth. This portion of his work, 
if less brilliant, is far more important than the former, 
since upon it the reliance of the church in all ages 
for the divineand infallible character of the doctrines 


hel 


oo 


a: 
i 
% 
a | 


Me 4 a P ‘ e 


o ws 


12 _ INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT — 


taught in the word of God has rested, and must of 
necessity rest; and im a degree proportioned to its 
importance has the testimony concerning it been 
made plain. Our Lord, after informing his disci- 
ples that there were many things which they were 
at present unprepared to hear and learn, assured 
-them that he would send them the Holy Ghost, 
which should “teach” them ‘all things,” (John xvi. 
26.) and should “guide” them “into all truth,” (ch. 
xvi. 13.) To this operation of the Spirit of God we 
would invite particular attention. In all cases 
in which these promises were fulfilled, it is evident 


that the human mind has been instfucted in truth’ 


without the agency of any written or oral communi- 
cation. The apostles could not have been instructed 
by the-forms of truth, which they, for the first time, 
developed; they must have been taught these truths 
directly by the Spirit. The position, therefore; which 
has been assumed by some, that the influence of the 
Spirit on the human mind in cenversion, as distinct 
from’the word, however acting in conjunction with 
it, is not to be believed, because the method of it can- 
rit be understood, must be abandoned, or the inspira- 
tion of the New Testament must be given up; since 
if the influence of the Spirit contended for is denied, 
because the method of its operation is not understood, 

on the same principle the divine character of chia 
truths the apostles taught may as truly cease to be 
acknowledged, because the method of their acquire- 
ment cannot be apprehended. The melancholy his- 


tory of attests the correctness of this as- 


‘ ——— Se. 


Se 
ON MATTER, INTELLECT, AND DISPOSITION. 13 


sertion; how many who have commenced only with 
denying the necessity of the influence of the Spirit 
on their own hearts, have terminated in denying the 
inspiration of the epistles, and in regarding the gos- 
pels as the production of illiterate and ignorant men! 

3. That class of operations of the Spirit the most 
interesting in its nature, and far the most momen- 
tous and glorious in its results, now remains to be 
noticed—that exertion of his power which affects the 
disposition, and consequently the moral character of 
man. It cannot fail to be perceived in the operations 
on matter and intellect, that, whatever may have 
been the instrumentality employed, the Holy Spirit 
was the direct agent in these operations. Whether 
aman break a stone with the blow of a hammer, or 
melt gold by the power of fire, he is in either case 
equally the agent who accomplishes these results, 
however different or even opposite the character of 
the instrumentality. The harmony of truth requires 
the same view with respect to the operations of the 
Spirit; the work of the Spirit on matter and intellect 
has been seen to be personal and effectual—that on 
the disposition must be so also. ‘To believe the for- 
mer and not the latter, would be to assert that the 
material part of humanity was more susceptible of 
the operation of Spirit than the spiritual; which must 
maniiestly in its own nature possess a much greater 
adaptation to spiritual influence, than the material 
part of the human system. It is true we have no 
idea of the method by which spirit operate directly 
upon spirit; neither have we of the method ry 


Pea 


14 INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


spirit operates upon matter—as in the case of raising 
the arm of the body in obedience to the volition of 
the mind: nor indeed of the method in which spirit 
is operated upon by the expression of thought or sen- 
timent. It can no more be developed how the oral 
or written expression of truth operates upon the mind 
than how spirit operates upon spirit without such ex- 
pression. All that can be affirmed in either case is, 
that the human mind is so constituted as to admit of 
such operations; and the proof in either case is to be 
derived not from the demonstration of the mode, but 
from evidence of the fact. We maintain that both 
facts exist, and that the evidence of the latter is as 
clear and satisfactory as that of the former. 

. Itisby no means, however, our design to affirm,that 
the word of truth, in its oral or written form, is not the 
instrument ordinarily employed by the Spirit in his 
operations on the human mind; far less, that he ever 
communicates to the mind any other truths than are 
therein revealed: such an idea is the basis of all fa- 
naticism; and it istantamouns toa declaration that the 
divine word is incomplete, and inadequate to the 
_ purposes for which it was designed. Were it to be 
admitted indeed, that the sacred scriptures are the 
instrumentality always employed, still the personal 
and effectual agency of the Spirit wherever spiritu- 
ally good results are produced, is clearly necessary ; 
but we are prepared to maintain that to limit the 
operations of the Spirit of God on the heart to the 
oral or written forms of truth, is both contrary to the 
nature of spiritual existence, to the analogy of the 


ON MATTER, INTELLECT, AND DISPOSITION. 15 


influence exercised by human minds on each other, 
to the experience of Christians in all ages, and to the 
testimony and examples of sacred writ.—The pre- 
sence of the Holy Spirit in the heart, separately from 
the scriptures, is of more vital consequence than 
many are apt to perceive. The ¢ruth can only be just- 
ly said to be present with us, when we are “‘in re- 
membrance” of it; is there any Christian who will be 
willing to limit the indwellings of the Spirit spoken 
of in the text even to his believing the word when- 
ever presented to the mind? But if the Spirit of 
God be in the heart when the word is not present to 
the memory, then the distinclive possession and opera- 
tion of the Spirit is clearly proved. Even, however, 
were it admitted thatthe Spirit of God was never 
present with, or acting on, the mind, when the word 
oral or written was not, whatever other valuable doc- 
trines might be affected, that of the personal and di- 
rect agency of the Spirit would remain untouched, 
The circumstance of the instrumentality employed 
by the Spirit in his operations on the disposition 
being apparent, so far from diminishing the evidence 
of the Spirit being the agent, manifestly confirms the 
fact; the “sword of the Spirit” is not only made by 
him, but exercised by him also. 

The operations of the Spirit on the disposition are 
indeed of a variety commensurate with the diversi- 
fied states of feeling of which the human mind is 
capable ; they may, however, be summarily compre- 
hended by the terms regeneration and sanctification + 
or the production of repentance, faith, and obedience’ 


16 INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


As several subsequent sections will be devoted to 
the consideration and the proof of the influences of the 
Spirit in regeneration, we shall only here refer to some 
of those passages of sacred writ, which assert them 
to be the agency by which sanctification of heart and 
life are also produced. Before quoting them we cannot 
help observing thatthe very title bestowed on the Spi- 
rit is descriptive of his agency in this blessed work, 
If conquerors have received their titles from the most 
celebrated of their achievements, the triumphs of the 
Almighty conqueror of depravity in the human heart, 
have added to the glory of his name, and he is not 
only the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of Holiness, 
Rom. i.,4. Let us to the law and to the testimony: 
—‘“ But ye are notin the flesh, butin the Spirit, if so 
be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from 
the dead dwellin you, he that raised up Christ from 
the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you. For if ye live after the 
flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do 
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Foras 
many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons 
of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bon- 
dage again to fear; but ye,have received the Holy 
Spirit, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”—Rom. viii. 
13—15. ‘Where the Spiritjof the Lord is, there is 
liberty.” 2 Cor. ili. 17. ‘For we, through the Spi- 
rit do wait for the hope of righteousness by faith :” 
Gal. v. 5.—“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, 


ee ae ee th Se 


ae eee ee 


ON MATTER, INTELLECT, AND DISPOSITION. 17 


peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” 
verse 22.—“‘We both have access by one Spirit to 
the Father,” Eph. ii. 18.—“In whom ye also are 
builded together for a habitation of God through the 
Spirit,” verse 22.—“Praying always with all prayer 
and supplication in the Spirit,” Eph. vi. 18.—“God 
hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, 
through sanctification of the Spitit and belief of the 
truth.” 2 Thess. ii. 13.—“Elect according to the fore- 
knowledge of God the Father, through sanctification 
of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ.” 1 Pet. i. 2—“Seeing you 
have purified your souls in obeying the truth, through 
the Spirit, verse 22.—“Know ye not that ye are the 
temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth 
in you?” 1 Cor. iii. 16.—‘‘And such were some of 
you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye 
are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by 
the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. vi. 11.—“What know 
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy 
Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and 
ye are not yourown?” 1 Cor. vi. 19.—“Forasmuch 
as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of 
Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but 
with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of 
stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” 2 Cor. iii. 
3.—“And the disciples were filled with joy, and 
with the Holy Ghost,” Acts xiii. 52.—“In the com- 
fort of the Holy Ghost,” Acts ix. 20.—“The love of 
God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost,” 
Rom. v. 5.—“For our gospel came not unto you in 


18 INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


word only, but also in power, and in the Holy 
Ghost,” 1 Thess. i. 5.—“Praying ——”. 
Jude 20. .y Bek Sih 

The foregoing is but a selection from the abun- 
dance of testimony with which the word of God 
teems, to the fact, that the Holy Spirit is the great 
agent in the sanctification of men. There are but 
two ways to evade the force of these passages—to 
limit their application to an age of miracles, or to 
affirm that they are metaphorical, and that literally 
the word is the sole agent in producing all these re- 
sults. Is it possible that any man, having read these 
passages, can put such a ‘construction upon them, 
and yet ask to be regarded asone “born of the Spirit?” 
-That attempts to maintain these positions have 
been made, the history of the past and of the present 
alike testify. How widely and how currently such 
notions as that the word is the Spirit—or that it is 
inseparably connected with it—or invariably accom- 
panied by it—that the Spirit influences us by the 
word only as we may each other by a letter; or that 
the Spirit is-in the word as a man’s spirit is in 
his writings—have been circulated, if the wriler 
can form but an imperfect, it is yet a lamentable 
estimate. To any who may have received such 
ideas he would suggest the question, by what agency 
do they expect the resurrection of their bodies will 
be effected? It is expressly asserted, (Rom. viii. 11.) 
that “he that raised up Christ from the dead shall 
also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that 
dwelleth in you.” If therefore, this Spirit be the 


_ —_ — - = er “ — 


ON MATTER, INTELLECT, AND DISPOSITION. 19 


> 


word—it is the Bible which is to effect their resur- 
rection! « [teis presumed, that persons entertaining 

i on will be careful to give directions that a 
Bible should be enclosed in their coffins. 


a | 


20 HUMAN DEPRAVITY 


PART I. 
OF THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRFT IN CONVERSION. 


CHAP. I. 


The necessity of the work of the Sporit in conwer- 
sion;— The argument from the universality of hu- 
man depravity. 


~ [The operation of the Holy Spirit in the conver- 
sion of a sinner isnot to be regarded as occasional 
or accidental, but as essential and uniform. Con- 
version to God never has taken place, and never 
will take place, without it. And if this be the case, 
it is but saying the same thing in other words, to 
assert that his influence is absolutely necessary to 
the production of this effect. ] 
This invariable necessity is rendered evident by 
the homogeneousness and universality of the depra- 
vity of the heart. We shall not now discuss the 
nature of that depravity ; we trust that will be made 
apparent in a subsequent section of this volume. It 
is now a question of extent and equality not of na- 
iure. But if it be admitted that this depravity 
was only an indisposition to comply either with the 
commands of the law, or the invitations of the Gos- 
pel—still it is ¢otal and universal. The whole tenor 
of Scripture asserts or assumes this. Let us refer 


TOTAL AND UNIVERSAL. 21 


to the second chapter of Paul’s Epistle tothe Ephe- 
sians, there we find the following phraseology :— 
“Dead in trespasses and sins,” (verse 1.) “Among 
whom we all had our conversation in times past, 
and were by nature the children of wrath, even as 
others,” (ver. 3,) “But God, even when we were dead 
in trespasses and sins, hath quickened us together 
with Christ, (verse 5.) Now to whatever subject 
the figure of death may be held to refer either totality 
and equality are intended, or a figure highly caleu- 
lated to mislead is made useof. A man cannot be 
more or less dead; the very idea is absurd: he must 
be either dead or alive. All dead persons are to- 
tally dead, and equally dead: but men are dead in 
trespasses and sins; therefore, whatever that death 
be, they are totally dead, equally dead. But that 
death all admit refers to depravity of heart, therefore 
sinners are totally depraved, equally depraved: “all,” 
“eyen as others.’ If the language of this section of 
Scripture be not plain and decisive on this point, 
no language can be. 

Decisive, however, as are these passages as to the 
extent and equality of human depravity, they are 
abundantly sustained by the most express assertions 
of the fact throughout the sacred volume. David 
not only tuned his mournful lays to deplore the cor- 
ruption of his own heart, as in the 51st Psalm, but 
also expressly asserts such corruption tobe universal: 
—‘The Lord looked down from heaven upon the 
children of men, to see if there were any that did 
understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside 

cl 


22 HUMAN DEPRAVITY, 


they are altogether become filthy: there is none that 
doeth good, uo, not one.” (Psalm xiv. 2 & 3.) 

When the hg ch ay prophet is speaking of. the 
grand expiatory sacrifice, he expressly intimates that 
the whole human race had fallen into one common 
state of transgression, the penalty due to which was 
sustained by one common Saviour. “All we, like 
sheep, have gone astray; we have turned, every 
one, to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on 
him the iniquity of usall.” (Isa. lili. 6.) If, as is 
more than insinuated by some, who, in spite of our 
Saviour’s awful warning, will still speak against the 
Spirit, the, depravity of men so essentially differs 
as to furnish the solution of the fact that some be- 
lieve, while others remain finally impenitent: surely 
the Rendict resulting from such diverse, not to say 
contrary, states of mind, must be of too opposite a 
character to be included under the phraseology, “all 
we, like sheep, have gone astray ” or “they are alto- 
gether become filthy,” or “children of wrath, even 
as others.” 

The views and experience of Paul perfectly cor- 
responded with those of David and Isaiah. ‘ For 
I know,” says Paul to the Romans, (ch. vil. ver. 15,) 
“that in me, that is in my flesh, dweileth no good 
thing.’ Now repentance and faith are spiritual ac- 
tions commanded by God; therefore they must be 
admitted to be good, and consequently they do not 
dweil in the flesh. To be ‘tin the flesh,” is to be 
without the Spirit. ‘The expression is used for ex- 
actly this purpose by Paul throughout the next chap- 


TOTAL AND UNIVERSAL. 23 


ter. “ There is, therefore, now no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after 
the flesh do mind the things of the flesh: but they 
that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.— 
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be 
that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.’ 
(Rom. viii. 1, 5, 8,9.) Are repentance and faith 
pleasing to God? Certainly—for he has commanded 
them: then THEY aRE NEVER pone By THOSE IN 
THE FLESH. ‘So they that are in the flesh cannot 
please God.” But those who are not in the flesh 
are in the Spirit; “ But ye are not in the flesh, but 
in the Spirit:” and those who are in the Spirit have 
the Spiritin them; “If so be that the Spirit of God 
dwell in you.” The case, therefore, standsas clear 
as the sun in its meridian glory. Those only who 
have the “Spirit dwelling” in them, are “in the 
Spirit :’? those only who are in the Spirit do any 
thing to “ please God:” repentance and faith do 
“please God ;” therefore, repentance and, faith are 
performed only by thosewio have the Spirit dwelling 
in them. Can any manask to be acknowledged asa 
Christian, who owns that his repentance and faith did 
nor resull from the indwelling of the Spirit of God? 


e2 


24 - CONVERSION THE OBJECT 


CHAP II, 


The Influence of the Holy Spirit in Conversion main- 
tained—fromthe express connection of Conversion 
with Divine Predetermination. 


The doctrine of the Divine predeterminations has 
been much misapprehended and equally misrepre- 
sented. No truth can be more apparent, and none 
more consistent with right reason. Indeed it is ab- 
solutely essential to just ideas of Deity—or other- 
wise we deny to the Eternal ejther the possession or 
the exercise of attributes which we find developed by 
ourselves every day, and which consequently we 
must have derived from our Creator. Is it too much 
to ask that we allow to God the same capacity of pre- 
determining Ais conduct, which we continually ex- 
ercise over our own? And while we, in all other 
points, form an idea of the Deity, as the supreme 
intelligence, by attributing to him, at least all the 
intellectual capacities we find ourselves in posses- 
sion of, and then superadding to them the qualities of 
perfection and infinitude; shall we destroy the harmo- 
ny of our ideas respecting the divine character by 
adopting a contrary method on this subject? Let it be 
clearly understood, then, that what we maintain is, 
tha! the Divine Being, like ail other intelligent agents, 
predetcrmines his own actions to the full extent of his 
Soreknowledge. 


OF DIVINE PREDETERMINATION. 25 


Many of the advocates of the doctrine of predes- 
tination have done it signal injustice in upholding it 
as something special to the plan of human redemp- 
tion: whereas, in the exercise of this attribute in the 
proceedings of his grace,he has acted in entire unifor- 
mity with all his creative and providential dealings ; 
and inconsistency and absurdity lie not to our charge, 
but at the door of those, who, while they admit 
the divine Being to predetermine the creation of a 
world, or subversion of an empire, shudder to make 
the same admission respecting the most glorious 
manifestation alike of his benevolence and his power 
in the conversion of a soul. The salvation of men 
is the highest glory of their Creator; to procure it, 
the Lord of life and glory laid aside his heavenly 
state—dwelt in a tenement of clay—suffered an ig- 
nominious death—endured inconceivable agony of 
soul—rose from the dead—ascended to the right 
hand of his Father—intercedes for his saints—pre- » 
pares mansions of glory for them—and comes again 
to summon them to their abodes of bliss. Is here no 
forethought? and is the single circumstance of the 
inducing some to partake of this banquet of love to 
be excepted from the general rule? Did our Lord 
die only to afford opportunity for the salvation of 
sinners? or was it not also actually to “bring many 
sons unto glory.” 

It is unnecessary, however, to our present object, 
to enter generally into the defence of this glorious 
doctrine. No mind that can divest itself for a mo- 
ment of the shackles of prejudice, can fail to admit 


26 CONVERSION THE OBJECT 


that whatever God does, that he predetermined to do; 
and this is all that is heedfil to our present purpose. 
That position being admitted, the converse of it 
cannot possibly be denied. If what God does, that 
he has previously determined to do, then what he 
predetermines to do, that he does. I am aware 
there are cases of evil, where God is figuratively 
said to do, that which he permits to be done; but the 
case about to be adduced, manifestly cannot be thus 
disposed of; the transaction is one in which no rea- 
son exists, why the connection of the Deity with it 
should be changed intoa permissive character only; 
on the contrary, the act in question is one which 
God promises to do, “I will puta right spirit in you,” 
&c. and one with he claims to himself, “not of 
yourselves; it is the gift of God.” It is asserted, 
(Acts xiii. 48) that “as many as were ordained 
(TeTAYUEVOL) to eternal life believed.” The be- 
lieving on which eternal life depends, must ma- 
nifestly be included in the ordination, that assures 
eternal life itself. This is apparent from the 
construction of the sentence. It is not said, “and 
as many as believed were ordained to eternal life;” 
in that case, indeed, the ordination to eternal life, 
might be ee to be the consequence of believing; 

but I may appeal to every candid person who un- 
derstands the principles common to all languages, 
whether the construction used by the inspired wri- 
ter, does not inevitably involve the idea that the be- 
lieving here spoken of resulted from the fact of the 
individual’s being ordained, and not the ordination 


OF DIVINE PREDETERMINATION. 27 


from the fact of believing. If this be the case, as 
undoubtedly it is, the only method by which the be- 
ing “ordained” of God, can rationally be connected 
with “believing;” is the predetermination of God to 
induce faith in the minds of the persons spoken of. 
This believing is a good work in the heart of man. 
and the agency which God employs to effect good 
Operations in the heart of man is the Holy Spirit.— 
No one questions that if faith be personally effected 
in the heart by God, that his Spirit is the agent; the 
whole question (and it is a vital one) is, whether 
the act of believing be effected by God at all, or 
_ whether he oniy furnishes the “fact,” and the “tes- 
timony” which are believed. 

{j am aware that this passage has been found to 
ress so heavily on more errors than one, that a des- 
perate effort has been made to evade its force by as- 
serting that the Greek word rendered “ordained,” 
‘ may be rendered “disposed” or “inclined.” I shall 
cut this matter short by denying it in the most un- 
qualified manner: and by challenging any individual 
to bring a single instance from any writer, sacred or 
profane, in which the word TetTQaY{EVOl, or any of 
the derivates of the verb TaG0q@ are ever used in 
the sense of inclined: till then I must indulge a 
painful regret, that any theologian should so far be- 
come blinded to what is due to honesty itself, as to 
make such an assertion. 

This sentiment is abundantly corroborated by 
other portions of sacred writ. In the eighth chapter 
of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, we have it express- 


25 CONVERSION THE OBJECT 


ly stated, that those whom he called he purposed to 
callsand those whom he predetermined to call, he did 
actually call; which is precisely the position we have 
maintained above. “And we know that all things 
work together for good to them that love God, to 
them who are the called according to his purpose. 
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predesti- 
nate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that 
he might be the first-born among many brethren. 
Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also 
called.” (Rom. vill. 28—31.) The language of the 
same apostle in his epistle to the Ephesians, is equal- 
ly indisputable: “According as he hath chosen us 
in him before the foundation of the world, that we 
should be holy and without blame before him in 
love: having predestinated us unto the adoption 
of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to 
the good pleasure of his will: In whom also we 
have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated 
according to the purpose of him who worketh all 
things after the counsel of his own will;” (Eph. 4, 5, 
11.) ‘or we are his workmanship, created in Christ 
Jesus unto good works, which God hath before or- 
dained that we should walk in them.” (Eph. ii. 10.) 

It is to us one of the most pleasing results of the 
views stated in the subsequent pages, that we can 
enjoy most unreservedly the highly consolatory and 
invigorating doctrines sustained by these passages, 
without in the slightest degree interfering with the 
basis on which the most pungent appeals to sinners 
firmly rest—the capacity they possess and the oppor- 
tunity afforded them to repent and believe: and so 


OF DIVINE PREDETERMINATION. 29 


far from there being even the shadow ofa discrepan- 
cy, or the appearance of any difficulty, these views 
accord with a harmony as refreshing to the soul, as 
it is assuring of their truth. 


CHAP III. 


The work of the Holy Spirit in conversion;— The ar- 
gument fromits acknowledged influence in sanctifi- 
cation. 


The operations of the Holy Spirit on disposi- 
tion generally, have already been made the subject 
of consideration in our introductory remarks. It 
has been shewn that the presence of the influence of 
the Spirit of God in connexion with, and yet dis- 
tinct from the truth, is so far from being contrary to 
the analogy of the action of human minds on each 
other, that it is in most direct and even exact accor- 
dance. Who has not felt that the humble attitude 
and suppliant eye has a powerful influence to per- 
suade, distinct from, though connected with, the 
facts presented; or that proudand haughty demeanor 
induce the refusal of a request which would other- 
wise have been cheerfully granted.. If spirit, when 
clogged with mortal clay, has such methods of ac- 
cess to its fellow spirit, who will be found bold 
enough to deny that methods equally silent, rational, 
aud efficacious, are possessed by that Spirit which 


30 INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


breathed into us the living soul? Weshall asstime 
it to be admitted, therefore, that the Spirit of God 
has direct access to the human mind: and we deem 
it equally proved from the mass of Scripture testi- 
mony presented in our introductory section, that the 
Spirit avails himself of that access to the mind of 
the believer in carrying on the work of his sanctifi- 
cation through the truth. It is a matter of much 
satisfaction that we feel assured that this truth is 
stillretained by many of those who are under what 
we pray God may prove only a temporary delusion 
respecting the absence of similar influences in the 
work of conversion. To the attention of such, we 
would present this plain enquiry :—Does not the ad- 
mission of the personal and efficacious influence of the 
Spirit in sanctification inevitably involve their presence 
an-conversion also? We feel assured that no candid 
enquirer will ever be left to give a negative to this 
question, but will be led to perceive both the absur- 
dity and impiety of such a denial. 

Let us suppose some one individual might be found 
either so intoxicated with the idea, to him so novel, 
that he is attempting to think for himself, or fasei- 
nated with honour of the personal acquaintance of 
some unrivalled resurrectionist of “ancient” errors, 
or bewildered by the sickly rays of the orb whose 
monthly shinings vainly strive to compensate the 
soul for its forsaking the pure light of the sun of 
righteousness ;—let us suppose someone infatuated 
individual could be found to maintain that the per- 
sonal influence and indwelling of the Spirit are 


IN SANCTIFICATION. 31 


given, and therefore are necessary, toproduce “love” 
and “joy,” expressly asserted to be the “fruits of the 
Spirit,” but are not necessary, and therefore not af- 
forded, to produce repentance and faith. Now either 
the influences of the Spirit are necessary to produce 
love and joy, or they are not; if they are not neces- 
sary, then God bestows a superfluous gift, which 
will be maintained by none; if they are necessary, 
then, in a spiritual sense, love and joy never exist 
without them. But the advocates of this view main- 
tain, that repentance and faith do exist without such 
influences; and therefore that repentance and faith 
do exist without love andjoy. ‘True repentance ex- 
isting without love towards the Being whom we 
repent having offended; and faith in an Almighty 
Saviour—a faith having, by his express declaration, 
eternal lite attached to its possession—actually pos- 
sessed without one principle of yoy! If this be not 
an absurdity, in what region is one to be found ? 
But the impiety of this errorexceeds its absurdity. 
It represents the Holy Ghost condescending to carry 
on the work which man has commenced: it allots to 
man the more difficult, and therefore the more glori- 
ous part, and to God the inferior, both in point of 
effort and of glory. Itexhibits to us, man reflecting 
on his past conduct, taking just views of his relation 
and duty to God, expressinz sincere sorrow for his 
ingratitude and rebellion, turning from his sins and 
the world to God, exercising faith in the Lord Jesus, 
willing to obey him at the risk of all his earthly 
prospects, and even of life itself; and all this with- 


32 INFLUENCES OF THE SPIRIT 


out reference (in the words of one of the advocates 
of this soul-damning error,) to “ that fatal and im- 
moral maxin of popular theology, that special spi- 
ritual operations are necessary to faith.”* Yes, this 
state of mind and eonduct without the Spirit !— 
“The Holy Spirit is not given to mento make them 
believe and obey the gospel; but rather because they 
have believed and obeyed the gospel.”{ Thus the 
“seeking first the kingdom of God ;” the “agonizing 
to enter in the strait gate;” the “cutting off the 
right arm;” and the “plucking out the right eye,” 
are the cause, not the consequence, of the influences 
of the Spirit being bestowed.t 


pie Se hg ie eae 
*** The Holy Spirit; a Discourse;’? as re-published in the 
Evangelist, Feb. 1833, (p. 30.) 
t Ibid. p. 26. 


} It is a cireymstance of a character as extraordinary as it is 
disreputable to the parties whom it concerns, that many of 
those who countenance and support the individuals who main- 
tain and preach that “there is no personal influeuce of the Spi- 
rit previous to baptism,’’ continue to deny that such doctrines 
are promulgated by the individuals alludedto. Whether in- 
tentionally or not, there must be great deception practised, and 
great delusion produced by this course. Either the personal 
influences of the Spirit are necessary to induce repentance and 
faith, or they are not: if they are, of course no person can be 
saved without repentance and faith produced by them. How 
any individuals, who believe that these influences are neces- 
sary, can by their presence, countenance, and fellowship, sup- 
port those who deny this essential doctrine, must be matter 
alike of grief and amazement to every sincere christian. We 
call upon them to separate themselves from the unclean thing: 
‘<He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 
2 John 11. That Mr. Campbell does still maintain this ruinous 
error, is unhappily too manifest to admit of a doubt from the 
following passages in his Extra, No. VI. dated August, 1833: 
«hat we may, in the light of truth, ascertain the true and 
heaven-taught doctrine of regeneration, we shall cautiously 
survey the whole process as developed by the commissioned 


IN SANCTIFICATION. oo 


Nothing can be more evident than that the work 
of conversion, (as inclusive of repentance and faith,) 
which is the very commencemeat of sanctification, 
must be not only an operation of a similar charac- 
ter to all subsequent acts of sanctification, but that 
it must in its own nature be the most difficult of them | 


teachers of the deep counsels of the only trae God. ‘Thatcer- 
tain things, parts of this great process, may be well understood, 
Certain terms which we are wont to use to represent them, 
must be wwil defiaed, and accurately apprehended. ‘These 
terms are Fact, Testimony, Faith, hepertance, Reformation, 
Bath of Regeneratton, New Birth, Renewing of the Holy Spi- 
rit, Newness of Life, [p. 339.] Mr. C. asserts this to be the 
“natural order.”? it will be seen in a moment, that Mr. C. 
places the ‘‘renewing of the Holy Spirit” after ‘faith, Repen 

tance, Reformation and.the Bath of Regeneration’? (or in 
plaim words Baptism;) of course, therefore, he holds that faith 
aud repentance, exist before and necessarily without the “‘re- 
newing of the Holy Spirit;’’ and this view he endeavours to 
sustain by this exercise of ingenious sophistry; “if then the 
fact and the testimony are both the gift of God, we may well 
say that faith and eternal life are also the gift of God, through 
Jésus Christ our Lord: (p. 341.)—No; it may not be ‘‘well 
said’? that “fact and testimony”’ only being given, ‘‘faith is the 
gift of God;”’ for both fact and testimony are abundantly given 
where faith is not possessed.—But to place Mr. C’s senti- 
ments beyond reasonable doubt, let us hear him once more:— 
“Ali that is done inus before regeneration, God our Father ef- 
fects by the word, or the gospel as dictated and confirmed by his 
Holy Spirit. But after we are thus begotten and born by the 
Spirit of God—after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on 
us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.’’ ‘L'his last indeed 
is a most extraordinary statement, so constructed that it will 
admit of two interpretations directly opposed to each other. 
T’he first clause affirms, that ‘‘all that is done in us before re- 
generation— (that is baptism—for thatis Mr. C’s regenerating 
ordinance) is effected by ‘‘the word;’’ from which all the 
‘‘disciples’? who deny the work of the Spirit in producing re- 
pentance and faith, will have the gratification to see that (to 
us their own terms) this most profound thinker and lucid wri- 
ter agrees with them. But then there are a very considera- 
ble number of the ‘‘discipies”? who having professed to be 
coaverted by the personal influences of the Spirit, do not like 


34 UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE 


all. It is every where described throughout the 
word of God: as being brought from darkness to 
light—as old things passing away, and all things be- 
coming new—as having eternal life attached to it, 
because it includes or ensures that imputed righte- 
ousness and personal holiness, without which no 


to represent themselves as either hypocrites or fools; and still 
more do not desire wholly to quench the Spirit by appropriat- 
ing to themselves a glory which belongs to him: and how are 
these to be appeased?—The last clause will keep them quiet— 
*« After we are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of God:’’ 
Thus those who deny the Spirit have Mr. C. to agree with 
them; and those who affirm his influences, may think he 
agrees also with them. Hot or cold—black or white, as the 
occasion may require! 

If by this ingenious device it be stilla matter of dispute with 
any whatare Mr. C’s sentiments on this point, let them learna 
jesson from the ancients. It was one of the characteristics of 
the heathen oracles (to which the apostle alludes in renouncing 
“‘the hidden things of dishonesty’’) that from their sacred ca- 
verns they issued responses to their deluded votaries and en- 
quirers capable of various and even opposite interpretations. 
Thus, when Croesus, after having offered presents of immense 
value, sought direction from the Delphian oracle, whether he 
should make war with the Persians, he obtained for answer, 
that if he did, ‘‘he should dissolve a great empire.’’? Deeming 
the oracle propitious, he made war against Cyrus, and fulfilled 
the prophecy by the dissolution and destruction of his own em- 
pire being the result. Sonow, upon an essential doctrine, the 
votaries of the oracle of Bethany do not understand its deci- 

_sion; one half maintaining that it admits the necessity of the 
personal influences of the Spirit to induce repentance and faith, 
while the other half inveighs against such a sentiment as ‘‘im- 
morai.?? They are in danger of doing far worse than Cresus; 
he risked an empire by trusting to a pretended prophet—they 
their souls. : 

There are yet another class of followers of Mr. Campbell, 
who inform us respecting the doctrine of the influence of 
the Spirit, that they come to no decision—they ‘‘leave that;:’’ 
Let them hear Christ say, ‘‘He that is not with me is against 
me.’’ At any rate, if they “leave’’ the essential doctrines of 
ea New Testament, they must excuse us if we also ‘‘leave”’ 

em. . 


OF CHRISTIANS. 35 


man shall see the Lord;—as being made alive— 
“quickened” the very resurrection term itsell’ being 
used.— Yea, as not merely involving future bliss, but 
as an actual passing “from death unto life.” (John v. 
24.) It isin vain to pretend that this is the state of 
a believer after baplism; it is he that “heareth and 
believeth” who is in this state of mind and of fa- 
vour with God. Let it be but clearly seen what it 
is that has been maintained to be effected without 
the personal operation of the Spirit, and no renewed 
man ever will receive it; he will remember that 
in ancient times it was deemed blasphemy if a 
man made himself egual with God; and will not dare 
think of thus making himself his superior? but will 
rather keep in prayerful consideration, those aw- 
ful words of our Lord, ‘‘W hosoever speaketh against 
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him nei- 
ther in this world neither m the world to come?” 
(Matt. xii. 32. ) 


CHAP. IV. 


The necessity of the work of the Spirit in conversion. 
The argument from the universal experience of 
Christians. 


The sentiment expressed in the motto of the cele- 
brated Cuitiinewortn, “In essentials unity—in 
non-essentials liberty,” may indeed have been 


36 UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE 


abused ; but we still hold it to be the same. It has 
often been asked—as if the question subverted their 
position—‘“‘W ho shall decide what points of doctrine 
are essential, and what non-essential?” But the 
reply is fully satisfactory: all men must, and invari- 
ably do, decide this question for themselves. The 
Unitarian complains of the intolerance which re- 
fuses to acknowledge him as partaking of the bless- 
ings of an atonement which he disbelieves; while 
he himself necessarily pursues the same course to- 
_wards the Deist. The Pelagian,* who denies the 
necessity of the Spirit’s influence in conversion, re- 
fuses to acknowledge the salvation of those who 
deny the atoning work of Christ; but complains 
bitterly of the bigotry of those who cannot admit 


*<< A‘ new controversy arose in the church during this century, 
and its pestilential effects extended themselves through the 
following ages. The authors of them were Pelagius and Ce- 
lestius, both monks ; the former a Briton, and the latter a na- 
tive of Ireland : they lived at Rome in the greatest reputation, 
and were universally esteemed on account of their extraordi- 
nary piety and virtue. These monks looked upon the doc- 
trines which were commonly received ‘‘ considering the gene- 
ral corruption of human naiure, and the necessity of Divine 
grace to enlighten the understanding, and purify the heart,”’ as 
prejudicial to the progress of holiness and virtue, and tending 
to lull mankind in a presumptuous and fatal security. They 
maintained that these doctrines were as false as they were 
pernicious: that the sins of our first parents were imputed to 
ther alone and not to their posterity ; that we derive no cor- 
ruption from their fall, but are born as pure and unspotted, as 
Adam came out of the forming hand of his Creator : that man- 
kind, therefore, are capable of repentance and amendment: 
aud of arriving to the highest degrees of piety and virtue by 
the use of their natural faculties and powers: that, indeed,, 
external grace is necessary to excite their endeavours ; but 
that they have no need of the internal succours of the Divine 
Spirit.””. Mosheim Ec. Hist. B. i. Cent. y. Chap. vy. Sec. 23, 


a 


OF CHRISTIANS. 37 


him to Christian fellowship. It is evident that some 
belief is essential to the existence of Christian 
character; and that there are doctrines the denial 
‘of which precludes the possibility of recognizing 
the individual as a Christian. We apprehend the 
influence of the seit in conversion is one of those 
doctrines ; and if itis imagined that this posi- 
tion is incompatible with the amiable lives of 
some of its avowed opponents, we would re- 
mind the objector that his argument avails him no- 
thing unless he will admit to Christian fellowship 
the Unitarian, the Deist, the Mahometan, and the 
Pagan, on the same grounds. 

These observations have been rendered necessary 
by the ground of argament taken in this chapter; its 
title implies that the writer, however painful it may 
be to maintain sucha position, does not see how any 
can be regarded as Christians who deny their con- 
version to result from the work of the Spirit on their 
hearts. It is surely self-evident that the denial of 
this doctrine affords those who maintain it no alter- 
native but to give up their hopes as connected with 
the fact, thatthe Spirit of God has begun the work of 
renewal in their hearts, as vain and delusive; or to 
regard those who deny such an operation on their 
own hearts, as destitute of the first principles of spi- 
ritual existence. We adoptthe latter alternative, 
and rest perfectly conscious that all allegations of 
breach of Christian charity in so doing are as un- 
founded in principle as they are uncalled for by 
the state of our fcelings. It is no less a kind faith- 


R 


38 UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE 


fulness to those infected with this destructive error, 
than a regard for consistency, which necessitates 
such acourse. _ 

Let us now appeal to the testimony of history, 
respecting this question, as supplied equally by the 
doctrines upheld in the church and the individual ex- 
perience of Christians in all ages. Hear the expe- 
rience of Paul himself, when describing his natural 
state, he says: “Hor I know that in me (that is, in 
my flesh) dwelleth no good thing;”” (Rom. viii. 17.) 
but when speaking of his state after conversion, he 
says, “ By the grace of God, Iam what I am.?”— 
(1 Cor. xv. 10.) Nor was it only in his personal ex- 
perience, the Apostle acknowledged this great truth; 
he affirms all his ministerial success to be attri- 
butable to the same blessed source: “I laboured 
more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but-the 
grace of God which was in me.” How could the 
grace of God labour? Was it not that it induced 
Paul to labour, as well as sustained him init? And 
was it not the same grace which induced him to be 


what he was? The same apostle, in speaking to the 


Corinthians, had previously assured them that he 
was only the instrument by which they believed, 
‘even asthe Lord gave to every man.” (1 Cor. iii. 
5.) We are well aware that the phrase “grace of 
God” frequently applies to other manifestations of 
favor than the communication of divine influence: 
but itis equally apparent that it frequently includes 
that blessing also, asin the following passage, in ad- 
dition to those already quoted: “the exceeding 


OF CHRISTIANS. _ an 41 
grace of God in you.” (2 Cor. ix, 14.) . That the 
saints received this grace in the very commence- 
ment of their renewed lives, is equally evident from 
the manner in which Paul speaks of the experience 
both of the Galatian and the Philippian converts. 
To the former, he says; “ Are ye so foolish ? having 
begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the 
flesh?” (Gal. iii. 3.) and tothe latter; “Being 
confident of this very thing, that he which hath be- 
guna good work in you, will perform it until the 
day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil. i. 6.) 

Such then were the views and experience of 
Christians in apostolic times. That the experience 
of those who “know the joyful sound,” continued 
the same in all ages, the page of history fully testi- 
fies. This essential truth was borne ample testi- 
mony to by the preaching, the lives, and the deaths 
of imeeny martyrs, and, indeed does not appear to 
have been controverted till the fifth century. The 
night of papal darkness was then fast closing in.on 
the Church: but as the fiery pillar was most brilliant | 
in the darkest and most troubled night the Israelites - 
ever knew, so the glorious truths of the gospel ap- 
pear in the most striking relief in the labors and 
lives of their advocates during the papal apostacy : 
and we challenge the fact that the doctrine of the 
Spirit’s work in conversion was ever denied by any 
of those noble-minded men who, during many ages, 
counted not their lives dear, that they might leave 
their testimony against the debasing tyranny of the 
man of sin. That those celebrated communities of 

D1 


- wi, 


3° Hg UNIVERSAL EXPERYFENCE 


holy men, the Waldenses and Albigenses, who sus- 
tained, with such undaunted jortitude, during so 
many years, the tremendous fury of papal persecu- 
tion, held the truth for which we are now contending, 
is abundantly evidentfrom their own doctrinal state- 
ment, which, for the purpose of rebutting the calum- 
nies of their malignant foes, not as authoritative 
on the corscience of any, they published to the world. 
Yn their confession of the year 1544, occurs the fol- 
lowing declaration :—3. “ We believe in the Holy 
Spirit as the comforter, proceeding from the Father 
and from the Son: by whose inspiration we are 
taught to'pray: being by him renewed in the Spirit 
of our minds: who creates us anew unto good works 
and from whom we receive the knowledge of the 
~ truth.” 

That these veiws were maintained, and these influ- 
ences experienced by the spiritual heroes of the glo- 
rious reformation, whether the Calvinists of Swit- 
zerland, the Lutherans of Germany, the Puritans of 
England, or the Presbyterians of Scotland, Calvin, 
~ Luther, Wycliffe and Knox, amidst a host of worth- 
ies have faithfully testified. Since the days in which 


these truths triumphed, the experience of the church. 


has been that those communities which have “held 
fast the form of sound words” (if not destroyed by 
the errors of Antinomianism) have spiritually pros- 
pered; while those churches who have abandoned 
their reliance on the Spirit of God, have sunk into a 
cold formality, and have been left to deny the first 
principles of the gospel. To this fact the state of 


— a 


ins 
OF CHRISTIANS. 41 


the Presbyterian body in England, when compared 
with that of the Independent, and Baptist and 
Evangelical Episcopalians, as well as the state of 
Protestantism on the continent of Europe, when 
compared with that in the United States, afford irre- 
fragable proofi—In the present day, where is the 
Congregational or Presbyterian church, where the 
Methodist or Evangelical Episcopalian, where the 
Baptist, in any quarter of the globe, who would re- 
ceive a person into communion on a profession of 
repentance and faith, asserted not to be produced by 
the influences of the Spirit? ‘Ti wey all confess with 
united voice, that it is the blessed Spirit of God, who 
hath made them to differ from the impenitent by 
whom they are still surrounded: it is the hope that 
he began the work that sustains their faith that he 
will carry it on in their hearts; and with undivided 
hallelujahs, they sing, “Him first, him midst, him 
last, and him in every thing.” 

Tt may be alledged that the universality of doc- 
trinal sentiment, can be no assurance of its truth. 
This position we readily admit:—there should how- 
ever be reasons clear and strong which induce us to 
oppose ourselves to the general testimony of the 
christian church. But this is not a case to which 
this observation applies. [It is not merely a matter 
of doctrinal sentiment, but of actual experience. A 
man might just as well tell me that it was a mere de- 
lusion, that it was the fire which warmed my frozen. 
limbs and restored them to life and activity, as that 
it was not the Spirit’s influence which melted my 

D2 


7 Gc” 
42 _ NO OTHER METHOD ’ 


ALAR 


heart, and caused the tears of repentance to flow 
or the joys of redeeming love to exhilirate my soul 
With rapturous delight. Reader, which will you 
believe, that the testimonials of at once the most 
inteltions, the most benevolent men in all ages, as 
to the feelings of their own minds have beenan en- 
tire delusion, and that the “ancient gospel” is now, 
for the first time, preached since the days ot. the 
Apostles, or that the Spirit of God has really befun 
and continued the work in their hearts, and that the 
assumption alluded to is as absolutely unfounded as 


it is superlatively arrogant? 


CHAP. V. 


The necessity of the Work of the Spirit inConver- 
sion:— The arguinent from the impossibility of 
“ otherwise rationally accounting for the existence of 


the fact. 


4 
Two questions at least arise from the admission of © 


the fact that the heart of man has undergone a 

change; first, by whom was it effected? secondly, by 
What method? 2 _Theanswer tothe latteris involved in 
the former. Ift! he difference existing between thecon- 
verted and unconverted be attributable to God, it must 


necessarily follow that he has acted on the former ~ 
different to what he has done upon the latter; and 


ve 


OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE FACT. 43 


all those who admit this fact have ever held such ad- 
ditional action to be the influence of the Holy Spirit. 
It is-only needful therefore to show that the fact of 
conversion cannot be rationally accounted for, with- 
out admitting special action of some kind on the 
part of the Divine Being, and it will be no longer 
denied, we apprehend by any, that such special ac- 
tion consists in the influence of the Holy Spirit. We 
challenge the closest attention of our readers to the 
process of reasoning which appears to us to be de- 
Cisive in this case. 

The fact before us is the existence of an impor- 
tant—an all-important—difference between two 
members of the human family; a difference, on which 
depends the eternal destiny of the individuals in 
question; one manrepents and believes, and another 
continues in his previous state of impenitence and un- 
belief. “Who made thee to differ?” is therefore the 
touch-stone of the case. Now it is a principle of 
nature, from which the Deity does not depart in his 
moral government of mankind, that “like causes, 
operating on like subjects produce like effects.” If 
men are alike essentially depraved, and if the divine 
_ testimony be communicated equally to them, and 
that is the sole agent by which c nversion were ef- 
fected, conversion would follow either in all cases or 
none; but this is not the fact:-on the contrary, then, 
some repent and believe, while others take occasion 
only to harden their mindsin sin. There must bea 
difference either in the subject operated upon, or in 
the causes operating, because there isa difference in 


i me ” ie 
Wy @ 44 NO OTHER METHOD 


the result: either God acts uniformly on objects es- 
sentially differing from each other: or otherwise on 
objects essentially of the same nature God himself 
acts differently. The question is not now by what 
method the eternally momentous difference is effect- 
ed, but by whom? The question is analogous in its 
operation to that put by our Lord to the Pharisees, 
respecting the preaching of John: “Was it from 
heaven orof men?” They could not, or would 
tell. They said, in effect, to our Lord, as it is now © 
said by those who advocate this truth, “We leave 
that!” But we must insist on bringing our opponents 
to the point:--If men are totally,.and therefore 
equally, depraved, they present a like subject; and 
when operated on by like causes a difference of re- 
sult certainly never will ensue. Hither therefore, 
the doctrine of total and equal depravity must be 
given up, and something spiritually good be main- 
tained to exist naturally in some men; or else special 
action of some kind on the part of God must be ad- 

_mitted. That in this distressing dilemma, the for- 

~ mer method of solving this (to them) extreme diffi- 
culty, is adopted by the opposers of Divine influence, 
there is abundant evidence: and yet dare they come 
forth and avow that all conversions are to be account- © 
ed for (and the principle must be uniform) on the 
ground that the least depraved of men are those who 
are converted to God? Were Mary Magdalen, the 
woman of Samaria, the thief on the cross, yea Paul - 
‘himself, instances in accordance with this method 
of solving the question? 


* . “ 


, i 


OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE FACT. 45 


We repeat the question, therefore, and challenge 
the reply: On what principle is the fact that one man 1s 
converted, and that another is not, to be accounted for? 
Shall it be said “'The Father converted him by the 
word?” But it is maintained also, and correetly, 
that the word was equally bestowed on the unbe- 
liever. This, therefore, will not account for the 
existing difference. What, then, is to be done?— 
Some say, as the Pharisees did:—“We cannot 
tell.” And yet these persons profess to be very stu- 
dents in divinity—to be far removed from the ignorant 
multitude who are still within the dark pale of the 


spiritual Babylon; while they, themselves, know . 


not the lesson which lisping babes in Christ delight 
to repeat. Others, weary of the inconsistencies in 
which they find themselves involved by their depar- 
ture from the truth, endeavor to liberate their minds 
from thraldom by doubting or even denying the ne- 
cessity of any radical change at all: while a third 
class console themselves by insinuating what they 
dare not avow, that the all decisive difference results 
from some being naturally “more noble” than their 
fellow men. 

Is there any heart that has known the power of 
soverGign grace, that can bear thus to behold the 
glory of Him whose delight it is to save the very 
chiefest sinners thus cast down, that the pride of the 
“least depraved” of men may be exalted on its 
ruins? Let none be deluded with words smooth as 
oil, but which are mixed with the deadly poison of 
asps. What should we think of the sincerity of the 


wis 


wee . i 
eS hy 


RF 


A 


x 
» 46 i EXPRESS WORDS 


repentance of that thief who, while confessing the 
crime of having stolen silver or gold, was, at the 
same moment, secreting about his person the bright- 
est jewel—the most valued object—we possessed ? 
And what shall we think of the sincerity of that 
sinner, who, while professing to be penitent for hav- 
ing defrauded God of his rights so long, shall rob 
the Redeemer of the most’ precious jewel of his 
crown, by appropriating to himself the glory of that 
repentance, which, if it exist in his heart at all, is 
one of those precious gifts which Jesus shed his 
heart’s blood to purchase, and ascended to heaven to 
. bestow, through the agency of the blessed Spirit ? 


CHAP. VI. 


The absolute necessity of the influence of the Spirit 
in conversion;—The argument from the éxpress 
words of Scripture. 


i Eine operation of the Holy Spirit in the conver- 
sion of a sinner is not to be regarded as oceasional 
or accidental, but as essential and uniform. Con- 
version to God never has taken place, and never 
will take place without it. And if this be the case, 
it is but saying the_same thing in other words, to 
assert that his influence is absolutely necessary to 
the production of this effect. ] 

Ir is far from being a just deduction from the 
writings of any author, that he hesitates respecting 


» 


RS ea see SE aa ey my! 
. 
te + 
OF SCRIPTURE. _ AT 


the correctness of a sentiment, because he does not 
make great effort to prove its truth. It may, and 
frequently does, arise from precisely an opposite 
reason—that he apprehends the point to beso plain 
as not to require any such effort. This must always 
be admitted when an author evidently assumes the 
truth of the point in question throughout his writings, 
and frequently makes use of it as indisputable. For 
instance, in a work on mental philosophy, you 
would not expect. to find a laboured argument to 
prove,the existence of the soul: neither in the Re- 
velation of God do we find any argument made 
use of to prove the existence of the Deity—that is 
assumed to be evident from ‘‘the things that are 
made.” Ina dissertation on the qualities, and ef- 
fects, and importance of light, we do not expect 
vehement assertion that it is generated by ihe rays 
of the sun—every recipient of his rays is conscious 
of this fact; and fully do we believe that it is thus 
also withal! those whoare illuminated by the Spirit 
of the Most High. So far, therefore, from there 
being cause for surprise that the direct testimony 
of Scripture is not more abundant, it is rather mat- 
ter of admiration, that on a point so self-evident, 
the direct proof from Scripture should be so abund- 
ant as it is found to be; and if there are those who 


have vaunted themselves, or at least felt thems 
“Selves excused under the idea, that there is no ex- 


press assertion in Scripture of the influence of the 
Spirit in conversion, we trust they will yet be ied 
to see that their position is utterly untenable. 


presets ta 
a es ee 


2 


48 EXPRESS WORDS 


[It is willingly admitted that whatever support the 
doctrine of divine influence in conversion derives 
from the fact of its being impossible otherwise ration- 
ally to account for the fact of conversion itself, that 
this is a point on which, independently of divine reve- 
lation, we have no means of obtaining complete and 
satisfactory knowledge. When any man does in 
fact turn to God, under what influence he did so 
might be doubted, were it not revealed; and yet 
more difficult might it be to decide whether any 
other man would turn to God without a given influ- 
ence, unless that also were declared by a being of 
competent information. According to their various 
views, some might suppose one thing, and some 
another; but the voice of authority puts all our im- 
aginations to silence, and announces, as from Him 
that knows the heart to its lowest depths, that, with- 
out his Spirit, no man ever did repent or ever will. 
We turn, therefore, to the language of the holy 
writ, and may place the passages which bear upon 
the subject before us in such an arrangementas fol- 
lows: 

1. Sometimes the existence of an unconverted 
state is expressed by asserting the absence of the 
Holy Spirit: as in Jude 19, 20; where ungodly 
men are described as “ dodcuel! having not the Spi- 
rit.’ If the fact of not having: the Spirit be a de- 
cisive evidence of an unconverted state, it is plain 
that no man is converted without becoming a par- 
taker of it. 

2. Sometimes the condition of man by nature is 


» ms > 
x 


# t 


OF SCRIPTURE. 49 


represented as absolutely requiring the influence of 
the Spirit. “The natural man discerneth not the 
things of the Spirit of God; neither ean he know 
them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 
Cor. ii. 14. “Ye will not come unto me, that ye 
might have life. No man can come unto me, ex- 
cept the Father which hath sent me draw him? 
John v. 40. vi. 44. The only assignable influence 
by which this opposition is in fact ever overcome, is 
that of the Holy Spirit; which therefore is clearly 
necessary to the conversion of a sinner.| These 
passages, while they afford no ground whatever 
for the notion of inability, (since whatever a man 
can do, if he be drawn or inclined, he literally can 
do, whether inclined or not,) are decisive 6n the 
point, that the sinner never will come to Christ, un- 
less the Father draw him. Whether any thing more 
than cerlainty of result is designed to be expressed 
by the terms cannot, used in those passages will be 
discussed in a future chapter—that nothing less 
can be designed must be evident to any reflecting 
mind.’ 

3. [Sometimes the success of the gospel gener- 
ally is referred to the power of the same glorious 
agent. 1 Thess. i.5. “For our gospel came unto 
you, not in word only, but in power, and in the 
Holy Ghost.” “The epistles of Christ, written 
not with ink, but-by the Spirit of the living God.” 
2 Cor. ili. 3. “‘ Who then is Paul, and who is Ap- 
pollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as 
the Lord gave to every man? So then-neither is he 


50 EXPRESS WORDS 


that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; 
but God that giveth the increase. 1 Cor. ill, 5— 
7.—“Ye hevetsn according as the Lord gave to 
every man.” Now the gospel is the grand means 
of conversion, and in the accomplishment of this 
end all its success lies; but this is declared to de- 
pend upon the accompanying influence of the Holy 
Spipit, and therefore also conversion. 

4. Sometimes the sacred writers directly ascribe 
to the Spirit the exercises involved in conversion 
to God. So in1 Peter,i.22. “Seeing ye have 
purified your souls by obeying the truth through the 
Spirit.” ‘‘ Obeying the truth,” though under ano- 
ther form of speech, isidentical with conversion; and 
the apostle affirms it to have been done “through 
the Spirit.”] “Whose heart the Lord opened, that 
she attended to the things which were spoken by 
Paul.” Acts xvi. 14. The decisive character of 
this passage, as ordinarily understood, is apparent 
to every one. Two methods are adopted to evade 
its force; one to assert that Lydia was already a 
believer, and therefore, that though the operation 
of the Spirit is admitted, the case is not in point: 
the other that she was not a believer, and that the 
‘ onening” spoken of was not an operation of the 
Spirit, but an effect of some natural circumstances, 
as “curiosity” for instance. That Lydia knew any 
thing of Jesus Christ before this time is anassump- 
tion utterly unwarranted by Scripture history. If 
“curiosity” opened the heart of Lydia, it is some- 
what strange “the Lord” should be brought into 


OF SCRIPTURE. 51 


connection with this state of mind; it has generally 
and truly been held, that people who hear from cu- 
riosity only, seldom get much good. These con- 
tradictory methods of avoiding so plain a passage 
only indicatea melancholy harmony of determina- 
tion, to deprive in any case the Spirit of the Lord of 
the glory due unto his name. 

5. [The change of heart and character in conver- 
sion is made the subject of a corresponding and 
characteristic promise. ‘‘A new heart will I give 
you, a new spirit willl put within you; and I will 
take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I 
will give you an heart of flesh; and I will put my 
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my 
statutes.” Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.]. This passage Is 
uncontrovertibly decisive as to the object for which 
the Spirit should be given—‘‘to cause men to walk 
in his statutes ;” OF totally subversive of the idea 
that the Holy ce aoe is communicated only because 
men have believed and do obey. It is equally true 
that the Holy Spirit, causes men to walk to the bap- 
tismal water, as that it rests upon them when there. 

6. In exact conformity with this prophecy of an- 
cient times, we find it affirmed that Jesus Christ 
was exalted “to give repentance (ueTavora a 
change of mind) and remission of sins,” (Acts y. 
31;) and we also find the fact affirmed (Acts xi. 16, 
18,) that by the bestowmentof the Holy Ghost, God 
had “granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto 
life;” the same word signifying a change of mind be- 
ing also again used. Nothing here is said ve 


52 EXPRESS WORDS 


“fact” and “testimony” only being given’; it is the 
change of heart itself which, in fulfilment of this pro- 
phecy, is given; the stony heartis taken away, and the 
heart of flesh, the feeling, repenting, heart or state 
of mind; is communicated. So again in the 21st 
verse: and the hand of the Lord was with them: 
and a great number believed.” It was not owing 
to the mere fact of preaching, but to the additional 
fact of the “hand of the Lord” being with them that 
“a great number believed.” So the Apostle affirms 
in the passages already quoted from his first epistle 
to the Corinthians, that they “believed as the Lord 
gave to every man;” and again that “itis God that 
giveth the increase.” 

Other passages of similar import might be ad- 
duced, but one more shall suffice: “by grace ye are 
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it 
is the gift of God.” Eph. ii. 8, Suppose it could 
be found out that in some esteemed and ancient 
manuscripts this passage read, “and that of your- 
selves, it is not the giftof God,” should we not have 
it declared, that the correction ended the controver- 
sy? That the passage was too explicit to be mistaken, 
and that nothing but the greatest prejudice could 
now maintain that faith was the gift of God? Well 
if this overthrow would result from the text being 
reversed, what overthrow results from the text 
standing as it really does? Who doesit not leave 
inexcusably guilty now? Admitting the text to 
read, as every unprejudiced man of common sense 


- read it, and the only way in which the pas- 


sa 


— 


OF SCRIPTURE. 53 


sage is sense at all, it does decide the case that 
“faith,” not “ facts,” not “testimony” only, but 
“faith is the gift of God, and not of ourselves.”— 
The necessities of a party, however, have suggested 
the equally ungrammatical and senseless construc- 
tion, that the antecedent to the relative, “that not 
of yourselves, &c.” is not ‘“faith,” but “grace.” Why 
Who ever supposed that the grace of God was of 
ourselves ? Where was the necessity of introdue- 
ing any such caution? Where the propriety of. 
asserting that the grace of God was the gift of God? 
—in other words, that the gift of God was the gift 
of God? But let the Apostle speak for himself, 
He tells the Ephesians they are “saved by grace,” 
“through faith.” Now faith, under whatever influ- 
ence performed, is clearly an act of the human 
mind; from this circumstance the Apostle deemed 
it possible they might find, as hundreds now do, some 
source of spiritual pride; he therefore hastens to 
remind them that though faith was the act of their 
minds, yet in another and most important sense, it 
was “not of themselves,” it was “the gift of God’ 
—it was God that wrought in them. There is no 
fear in leaving this passage to the common sense of 
_ Christians, or even of mankind at large... The gram- 
matical criticism, by which itis attempted to be per- 
verted is altogether superficial and utterly untenable.* 


ee eee aaron aeene itn acest bicity teenie 


* The critical observation attached by Dr. Doddridge to 
this passage is so fully confirmatory of the views the author 
has taken, that he cannot refrain from inserting it here.— 


“Some explain the following clause [and this is not of your- s 
~; oe 


54 EXPRESS WORDS 


7”. Wehave now finally to enquire the express 
testimony of Scripture on one more point only. If 
any thing more is bestowed upon any, beside the | 
knowledge of th2 “facts” and the “testimony,” we 
shall surely find the grateful acknowledgment of 
such peculiar favor: if on the contrary, no such ad- 
ditional favor is bestowed, no acknowledgment of 
it will of course be found. To whom have good 
men in apostolic times, and in all ages, attributed 
their change of heart, to themselves orto God? “But 
God, who is rich in mercy for his great love where- 
with he hath loved us: even when we were dead 
in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.”— 
Eph. ii. 4, 5.—and again, verse 10. ““For we are 
his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
works, which God hath before ordained that we 
should walk in them.” Can any acknowledgments 
be more humble or more specific? Again, when Bar- 


Mean prema ee Se TT a ee ae 


selves,] as if it were only a repetition of what was said be- 
fore, that the constitution that made faith the way to salva- 
tion was not of their own appointment, but of God’s. But 
this is making the apostle guilty of a flat tautology for which 
there is no occasion. Taking the clause as we explain if, 
that is, asserting the agency of divine grace in the production 
of faith, as well as in the constitution of the method of sal- 
vation by it, the thought rises with great spirit. As for the 
apostle using the word (towio) in the neuter gender, to sig- 
nify faith, the thing he had just before been speaking of, 
there are so many similar instances to be found in scripture, 
that one would wonder how it were possible for any judicious 
critics to have relied so much on this as they do, in rejecting 
what seems beyond all comparison the weightiest and most 
natural interpretation. Compare the original of the following 
-exts: Phil. i. 23.—Gal. iii. 17. iv. 9; and for the like con- 
struction of other Greek authors of undoubted credit, see 
Elsner, Observ. vol. i, p. 128 ;° and Raphel. Annot. ex 


r _ Herod. p. 186.” 


OF SCRIPTURE. __ 55 


nabas “saw the grace of God,” as manifested not in 
the preaching the gospel, but in the believing it, 
he was glad; and so of the apostle, it is affirmed 
(Acts xviii. 27.) that “when he was come he helped 
~ much them which had believed through grace.” 
Paul too could say (1 Cor. xv. 10,) “by the grace of 
God, lam whatI am.” And in accordance with this 
is the language of all the saints, ascribing the glory 
of their salvation to God alone. ‘Not unto us, O 
Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, 
for thy mercy and thy truth’s sake.” (Psalm exyv. 1.) 
The existence of an unconverted state is expres- 
sed by the absence of the Holy Spirit—the condi- 
tion of man is represented as absolutely requiring 
the influence of the Spirit—the success of the gos- 
pel is attributed to the power of the same _ blessed 
Spirit—the exercises of mind in conversion are di- 
rectly attributed to the Spirit—the change of heart 
by the Spirit, is the express ‘subject of promise in 
ancient prophesy—it is affirmed that Christ was 
exalted to give this very blessing—the fact that 
it was bestowed by the out-pouring of the Holy 
Ghost, is also expressly affirmed—the reception 
of such gracious influences are gratefully acknowl- 
edged: and yet individuals are found who vauntingly 
deny that there is any support from Scripture to the 
doctrine of the influence of the Spirit in the conver- 
sion of the soul! However this may be, nothing 
can be more decisive than the various, yet uniform, . 
evidence of Scripture on the point under considera- 
tion ; [nor is it easy to imagine that any man regard- 
> 


56 EXPRESS WORDS OF SCRIPTURE. 


ing the authority of the divine word, can entertain 
the contrary opinion, or a sentiment which neces- 
sarily implies it. In the face of this overwhelming 
mass of divine testimony, it were scarcely less 
than insane to doubt for a moment, not merely the 
high importance, but the absolute necessity of the 
Spirit’s influence to the conversion of a sinner. It 
may be added, however, that these declarations 
have an echo in the breast of every man. Those 
who would read their own hearts, would have been 
powerfully led towards this conclusion, even if it 
had not been revealed ; and what the divine oracles 
thus afligm, is established by the uniform and uni- 
versal fact, that no man ever does turn to God with- 
‘out the acknowledged interposition of an unseen 
‘influence making him willing as in the day of 
power. The author cannot conclude this chapter, 
without humbly acknowledging his part in the ge- 
neral truth. As he finds it in his bible, so he finds 
it in hisheart. There is no fact of which he has a 
more thorough conviction than this, that in his na- 
ture there dwelleth no good thing, but, on the con- 
trary, every evil; and that the blessed Spirit is ab- 
solutely necessary for him even to think"a good 
thought. Had the experience of even a short life 
not taught him this lesson, he must have been blind 
and infatuated indeed. | 


f 


Be : 


FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE. 57 


a 


AP. VII. 


e 


The necessity of the influences of the Sptrit in Con- 
—® version:— The argument fromthe figurative expres- 
sions of Seripiure. ‘ 
* 

Arter the abundant and direct testimony already 
adduced, it will be necessary to enter only briefly on 
this collateral source of support. The whole of our 
Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus, though figurative 


inits language, is directly inaccordance with the view 


which has been taken of this doctrine. “Jesus an- 
swered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say un- 
to thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see 
the kingdom of God. . . . Except a man be 
born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God. That which is born of 
the flesh is flesh; and that which is born ofthe Spirit 
is spirit.”--Our Lord assures Nicodemus that unless 
aman be “born from above,” (this is decidedly the 


proper translation of avabev he cannot see the king- 


dom of God:” and in reply to a question from Nicodes » 


mus, which rendered it manifest that he did not appre- 


hend the spirituality of our Lord’s meaning, our Lord - 


explains the phrase “‘born from above,” by being “born 
of water and of the Spirit;” that is “of water, even 


of the Spirit ;” the word even, being an equally cor- 


EZ 


58 - FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE. 


rect rendering of the Greek conjunction xqy relieves 
the passage of all difficulty. It is evident our Lord 
was speaking wholly of an internal change, not at 
all of an external ordinance, for there is no reference 
to baptism whatever through the whole chapter, ex- 
cept the supposed allusion in the term “water 5” 
manifestly the figure, of which the phrase the SP 
rit, connected by the word even, is explanatory. 
It is in every respect evident that our Lord is here 
~ speaking of his spiritual, and not of his visible king- 
dom, (and, therefore, of the cleansing operations of 
the Spirit, and not of baptism,) for it is most certain 
that many persons may and do enter the visible king- 
0 without everbeing born of the Spirit ; and this 
endered the more clear from that expression of 
our ‘Lord’s: “that which is born of flesh is flesh, and 
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit :” the former 
term implying an unconverted, and the latter a con- 
verted state of heart. Exactly the same figure is 
found in Titus iii. 5,—‘“‘ The washing of regenera- 
tion, even the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” 

That striking passage (John i. 13,) in which the 
evangelist speaking of those who believed, declares 
that they “were born not of blood, nor of the will of 
the flesh, nor of man, but of God,” is as strong in 
support of our view as any figurative expressions 
in their nature can possibly be; and when taken in 
conjunction with those expressions in the first gene-» 
ral epistle of John, ‘‘ every one that doeth igh _ 
ness, is born of him,” surely makes it evident that i it 
is an internal change of heart, and not an exter- 


* 
FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE. 59 


nal ordinance, that is spoken of: for itis well known 
that it cannot be affirmed that every person who is 
baptized, is “born of God;” nor are there many now 
‘living who will choose, we apprehend, to affirm that 
no unbaptized persons are truly born of God. The 
same expression “born of God,” is several times 
subsequently used by the apostle John ; but always 
with respect to personal.character, and not with any 
reference to any ordinance of the church. 

Under whatever figures the individual effects or 
the general spread of the gospel are set forth, whe- 
ther it be the “‘leaven hid in three measures of meal,” 
or the “grain of mustard seed,” the same prinei- 
ple of divine influence to give efficiency, is ever 
manifest, and constitute a link of an unbroken chain 
of evidence, which cannot fail to convince the mind 
of any candid enquirer. 


CHAP. VIII. 
Objections answered. 


THE positions, we have endeavoured, we trust 
successfully, to maintain in the preceding chapters, 
are, first, That there is a personal and special in- 
fluence of the Spirit super-additional to the word; 
and secondly, that such infiuence is actually exert- 
ed in the conversion of the unrenewed, as, well as 
in the sanctification of the renewed heart. We shall 
consider separately the objections which have been 

E3 


we 
60 i OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


supposed to lie against either or both of these po- 
sitions. Before entering on them we would pre- 
mise, that we hold ourselves bound only to refute, 
or to demonstrate the inapplicability of objections 
relating to the views we have expressed. If objec- 
tions exist against the opinions of others either as 
expressed from the pulpit or the press, we leave to 
others the work of defending their sentiments ; it 
is surely sufficient if we rebut objections only so 
far as they pertain to our own. 

With respect to the first position, that there is a 
personal influence of the Spirit super-additional to 
the word, all the objections which have been urged 
may be concentrated in the two icllowing; the 
first relating to the structure of the human mind ; 
the second to the excellency of the word of God. 

1. With respect to the first of these objections 
it has been urged, that the human mind is capable 
of being operated on by motive alone, and therefore 
the truth as exhibited either in the oral or written 
word, can be the only medium of affecting it. The 
constitution of the human mind, is the subject of 
the first chapter of the second part of this volume + 
it will be found that it is maintained to be whol- 
ly’of a rational character ; and it is conceived that 
there is nothing in the preceding pages which is 
in the slightest degree inconsistent with such a 
view. It is readily admitted that the mind Is ¢a- 
pable only of being influenced by motive ; this is a 
characteristic essential to its distinction from mat- 
ter, which is acted on only by force. ‘The whole of 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 61 


the objection now under consideration is based upon 
this fallacy—that motive is only capable of being 
brought to bear upon the mind in an oral or writ- 
ten form. The feelings induced by contempla- 
plation of the ashy paleness of approaching disso- 
lution, are equally rational with those that are 
called forth by the torrent of impassioned elo- 
quence ;—and the creative imaginings of luxuriant 
fancy, which picture forth objects of which we 
have never heard, are no less indications of a ra- 
tional constitution than the deductions which the 
writings of Euclid enable us to form. “What we 
have maintained is, that attention to the word is 
induced otherwise ‘haan by the word itself, and that 
“such inducement is to be attributed to the suasion 
of the Spirit of God. That there is ample foun- 
dation for this position, without exceeding the just 
analogy derived from the varied modes of action of 
one human mind on another, we deem has been 
made apparent; and even were that analogy exceed- 
ed by the Almighty Father of spirits, we do not 
perceive that such influence would be justly charg- 
able with being irrational. When the objector is 
prepared to say the spirit of man never influenced 
his mind without words, it will be time enough to 
admit the force of his sbigesion to allow the Spirit 
of God an access to the mind distinct from the 
word of God. For further elucidation of the con- 
sistency of the work of the Spirit with the rational 
constitution of man, the reader is referred to Part 
Il, Chap. iv. 


G2 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. an 


2. If there is no force in the objection respecting 
the constitution of the human mind, there is not 
even the appearance, inthe views we have main- 
tained, of an idea in any degree derogatory to the 
divine word. We have not spoken directly or in- 


directly of the word being a “dead letter,” or of. 


its being “energized” by the Spirit of God. Our 
views are wholly at variance with the sentiments 
implied by such expressions. We have no idea 
that the word undergoes any alteration, or is the 
subject in any case of any. divine influence—it is the 
state of the heart, and that alone, which undergoes 


any change by the power of the Spirit of God.— | 


Truly, do we believe with the Psalmist, that the 
word of the Lord is perfect, converting the 
soul.” Such is our view of the power of divine 
truth, that it appears to us utterly impossible that 
any man should yield to its sacred claims that at- 


tention whieh he knows it deserves at his hands, . 


and not be transformed by it. Surely this is not 
contradicted by the statement that no man ever 
does yield such attention without the Lord by his 
Spirit opens his heart! On the contrary, these 
combined views give honour due both to the word 
of’ truth and the Spirit of grace; and accord with 
that declaration of the apostle, that we are saved 
“through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of 
the truth.” * BS 

’ But however the general doctrine of the personal 
influence of the Spirit be admitted, some may 
be still inclined to object that to assert its necessity 
in conversion, is 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 63 


1. To contradict the plain comme%q to repent, 


* >] gs 
given alike to all men, and e7ysequently to those 


who are without the Spir’., This objection has no 


a 
foundation on Wy to rest, as it respects the 
Views Main?’ ned in this volume, whatever may be 


the ca*’. with the views of others. It is surely not 


“ontradictory to command a man to do what he 
will not do; nor to maintain that the command was 
just in itself though no entreaties or threatenings 
ever succeeded in inducing him to comply. If this 
appear no contradiction in contemplating thé action 
of the mind in common life, neither can it be in 
the matter of religion. If the reader will pay a 
candid attention to the definition of disposition 
and power in Part II. Chap. ii., and to the nature 
of human responsibility, in Chap. vil. we appre- 
hend he will find himself compelled to waive en- 


tirely all objections on this point. 


9. It may again he objected, if the influence of 
the Spirit be necessary to conversion, how can it 
be accounted for that men are directed to ‘‘repent 
and believe,” and not rather, as some teach, to pray 
for the Spirit, that they may be enabled to repent 
and believe. The reason will appear by a moment’s 
consideration; the measure of the divine require- 
ments is man’s,duty not his inclination ; and the 
limits of a man’s duty are his ability and opportu- 
nity, not his disposition. To represent that an un- 
yepenting and unbelieving man is to pray for the 
Spirit, is to tell a man to pray for what he does not 
desire, and in a manner in which he certainly will 


mY 


> 


64 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


never be hearu-or answered. When the sinner feels 
the wretchedness o:. his condition and the hard- 
“ness of his heart, and is willing to seek the aid he 
needs through the all-prevailing name of Jesus; then, 
and not till then, is he encouraged, not commanded, 
to pray for the influence of the blessed Spini. To 
this state he is to be brought by the exhibition of his 
utter sinfulness, dreadful danger, and deplorable de- 
pravity, on the one hand; and the full and free atone- 
ment of Jesus, on the other. The reader will find 
this point set in a clear light, by perusing the close 
of Chap. vii. Part II. in connection with Part III. 
3. The only remaining objection of any apparent 
force is, the allegation that the Holy Spirit is be- 
stowed only in baptism, which not being required of 
any previous to repentance and faith, that state of 
mind must exist previously to, and irrespective of, the 
influence of the Spirit. Certainly if the premises 
were true, the conclusion would be undeniable. 
But the position, though attempted to be supported 
by ingenuity and sophistry perhaps as specious as 
ever were exercised in the cause of error in any age, 
is utterly incapable of withstanding the slightest 
examination. The communications of the Spirit 
limited to the day of Pentecost for the Apostles 
and their disciples, and to the time of baptism in 
al) subsequent ages !—Do the advocates of this no- 
tion ever read the New Testament in their own 
tongue? They profess so to do, and boast the pecu- 
liar perfection of their knowledge of ‘historical 
facts.” Letusthenreferto history. We find the dis- 


<= 


- on 


ry 


_* 


oe OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 65 


ciples, during the life of our Lord, working miracles: 
does this prove they did not possess the Spirit till 
the day of pentecost?* We find our Lord telling 
them, previous to his death, (John xiv. 17,) “ But 
ye know him for he dwelleth with you.” Andagain, 
(John xx. 22, 23,) after his resurrection, ‘the breathed 
on them,” and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost, 
whosesoeversins ye remit,” &e. There is no mention 
of the Holy Spirit being bestowed on these disci- 
ples at their baptism; but surely there is abundant 
evidence that whatever additional and abundant 
outpourings of the Spirit they received atthe day of | 
pentecost, they were m possession of a large mea- 
sure of his influences before that time. - . 
Let us now see how the case stands with respect 
to the history of the bestowment of the Spirit, sub- 
sequently to. the day of pentecost. The first instance 
we have recorded of the bestowmentwf the Holy 
Ghost is that of the disciples at Samaria, who had » 
been converted umder the ministry of Philip, and had 
been baptized by him; yet some time after it was 
declared the Holy Ghost (in his miraculous gifts) - 
was as yet “fallen upon none of them; but Peter 
and John came from Jerusalem, “and laid their 
hands on them, and, they received the Holy 
Ghost.’ Laying on of the hands, therefore, sub-" 
sequently to baptism, and not baptism itself, was 
the medium of their receiving this “ gift’ In the 


*Perhaps the abbettors of this notion will join the Pharisees 
and say, the disciples wrought their miracles by the power 
ef Beelzebub! 


66 ; OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, e 


next case of baptism, that of the Eunuch, no men- 
+ tion is made of his receiving the gift of the Holy 
se Ghost. In the next, that of the great apostle of the 
Gentiles, Ananiasdaid his hands on Paul, declaring - 
that he was sent that he “might receive his 
sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.”— 
(Acts ix. 17.) After that he was baptised. 
In this instance, therefore, the Holy Ghost was 
given by laying on of hands before baptism. The- 
narration which follows that of Paul, is that of 
Cornelius, which would of itself be fatal to this 
ancient error new revived. While Peter was yet 
speaking, “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word,” the consequence of which was 
that they “spoke with tongues:” after they had 
received this gift, Peter “commanded them: to be 
baptised;” (Acts x. 13.) The nextcase of baptism 
recorded is,that of Lydia; no mention is made of 
» othe gift ofthe Holy Ghost. Then that of the jailor; 
al no mention of any gift of the Hely Ghost. Then 
that of Crispus andallhis house ; no mention of the 
Holy Ghost. The next case, that of the Ephesians, 
is decidedly against this notion: after they had 
been baptised} “Paul laid hands on them ; and the 
Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with 
tongues:;” (Acts xix. 6.)—What do ‘‘facts” and “tes- 
timony” say then on this point? That there’is not 
one single instance recorded of the gift of the Holy 
"Ghost being communicated inbaptism, whilé in all the 
instances, save that of Cornelius, it was bestowed 
during the laying on of hands. . : 


* OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 67 


We shall now refer to the only passage relating 
to this subject, which is not, on the very first view, 
directly adverse to the error we are combatting— 
‘Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
the Holy Ghost.” In the first place there is not in 
this passage the slightest intimation, that the gift of 
the Holy Ghost should be bestowed in baptism: the 
correct construction of the sentence requires that it 
should be regarded as a promise, of what the disci- 
ples should receive after baptism: “be baptized,” 
“and ye shall receive.”” in the next place the phrase 
used, is, that which always imples, miraculous 
gifts, and not merely sanctifying influences on 
the disposition. The apostle appears even to have 
taken particular pains to avoid this construction: he 
does not say, “and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost; 
but ‘‘the gift (Oa@peay) of the Holy Ghost.” Thus 
utterly fails the solitary passage, by ingenious per- 
version of which, in opposition to all other “facts 
and testimony” the church has been infested with 
this pernicious error. We trust that most who 
have imbibed it will come back to the “ancient” 
truth, that every good thought, of which repentance 
and faith are some of the very best, are implanted 
in the heart of the sinner, througn the personal in- 
fluence of the Spirit of God; while his miraculous 
“gifts” were bestowed in diverse methods, but prin- 
cipally by laying on of hands. 


68 EFFICACY OF THE 


If there are other objections, we believe that the 
succeeding chapters, written in a land where such 
absurdities had either never been heard of, or 
had run out the length of their natural lives, and 
passed into merited and undisturbed oblivion, will 
entirely dispel them from the minds of any candid 
enquirer after truth. 


CHAP. IX 


Of the certain Efficacy of the Spirit's Influence 
in Conversion. 


In perfect correspondence and entire harmony 
with the doctrine that the influence of the Holy 
Spirit is absolutely necessary in the work of con- 
version, is the assertion, that it is also CERTAINLY 
EFFECTUAL. By this language we mean, that 
whensoever the Spirit begins to operate upon the 
heart of a sinner for his conversion, he invariably 
accomplishes the work. He never suspends his 
interference till the work is achieved ; nor are there 
any cases in which his influence is ineffectual to its 
attainment. 

That there are many and great obstructions to 
conversion 1s readily admitted ; but it must be ma- 
nifest, we conceive, without any proof, that the di- 


“ 


SPIRIT’S INFLUENCE. 69 


vine agent of whom we are speaking is competent 
to remove them all. Being divine, he is also al- 
mighty. Difficulty isa word totally inapplicable 
to him; and not less so in the conversion of a sin- 
ner, than in any other work he undertakes. If it 
be his gracious- pleasure, therefore, to operate effec- 
tually to this end, there is nothing to hinder him 
from doing so. But have we reason to think that 
he will? 

1. In taking, as of course we do, the affirmative 
side of this question, we may argue from the wis- 

by-which it must be conceived that the pro- 
éeedings of the blessed. Spirit are directed. 

Now itis one of the most obvious dictates of 
wisdom, that a work which we do not mean to fin- 
ish should not be begun; and not less so, that when 
a work is begun it should be finished, unless there 
be some paramount reason for its abandonment.— 
Nor are these dictates of merely human wisdom, 
since they are stamped with the impress of divine 
sanction, in the following address of our Lord to 
his disciples. Luke xiv. 28—30. “For which of 


~ you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down 


first, and counteth the cost, whether he have suffici- 
ent to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the 
foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that be- 
hold it begin to mock him, saying, This man be- ~ 
gan to build, and was not able to finish.” And if 
it be thus a matter of just reproath that a man 
should begin what he is not adle to finish, how 
much more so if he should commence a work 


70 EFFICACY OF THE 


which he did not mean, or had not constancy 
enough to complete, though he were able? 

We need not hesitate, therefore, to apply the 
rule before us to the operation of the blessed Spi- 
rit. Ifhis proceedings be sufficiently characterized 
by wisdom to withdraw them from the mockery of 
‘all who behold” them, he will begin nothing 
which he does not mean to finish; nor will he, 
without urgent cause, forsake the work of his own 
hands. We say, not without urgent cause, not be- 
cause we think such a case has ever existed, or 
ever will exist; but to make the hypothetical cor 
cession, for the sake of argument, that, if any : 
good reason can be shewn why the work of con- 
version should be abandoned by its glorious Au- 
thor after he has commenced it, we are ready to al- 
low its force. But can any such reason be shewn, 
or even be conceived of, in reference to a being of 
whom all possible cireumstances are perfectly fore- 
known? A reason that would lead to the abandon- 
ment of a work after it was begun, would operate 
yet more powerfully to prevent its being undertaken 
at all; so that, as no sufficient reason can be sup- 
posed to arise why the Spirit should renounce his 
design to accomplish the conversion of a sinner 
after he has commenced his work, its relinquish- 
ment, should it ever take place, could be ascribed 
to no other causes than’such as would involve both 
the undertaking and its author in a total want of 
wisdom, and a just exposure to dishonour. 

But the force of this argument is not yet fully 


* 


SPIRIT’S INFLUENCE. Bee OL 


stated. The accomplishment of conversion when 
the work is begun, we have shewn to be necessary 
to shield its author from shame. But is this: all 
thatis to result tohim? Far fromit. Every work 
of his is to redound to his glory. How much more 
then is it to be maintained that* he will make this 
work complete, since it cannot otherwise “shew 
forth his praise!’ How inconceivably strange 
would it be, if, instead of this, he were only to sur- 
round himself with fragments, which, however 
beautiful and durable in themselves, would only be, 
on that account, the more lasting and afflictive 
sources of dishonour and regret ! 

2. If there is force in the general bearing of the 
preceding argument, it will be augmented by refer- 
ring to the special character and pre-eminent excel- 
lency of the work in question. For if there be any 
object which, rather than another, a person of wis- 
dom will strenuously pursue, it is surely such an 
one as exhibits the highest excellence, and leads to 
the most important results. Let the work of the 

Hol Spirit | in-conversion be regarded i in this light. 
Without assigning it a pre-eminence over all his 
works, we must at all events allow it a very high 
elevation among them. It far exceeds the works of 
nature, and the administration of providence. It is, 
the new creation of the soul in the image of God. 
It is, on the part of the blessed Spirit, the exertion 
of a holy energy, and the production of a holy re- 
sult. It is intimately connected with all the hopes - 
and joys, the purity and devotedness, the redemp- 


EFFICACY OF THE 


and glorification of the soul on which he acts. 

Out of the depths of corruption and iniquity, it 
prepares materials for a ‘holy edifice, a temple of 
the living God, a monument of grace, to adorn 
eternally his palace in the skies. In whatever 
light we regard the conversion of a sinner, there- 
fore, we cannot for a moment imagine that such a 
work will voluntarily be abandoned by its author. 
O no! sooner should creation itself be forsaken, and 
the course of providence be confounded, than the 
influences which turn a sinner to God fail of their . 
intended issue. 

3. Further confirmation of this sentiment might 
be derived from the gracious character of the work 
of conversion. Itis undertaken, not merely for the 
clory of its author, but also for the happiness of its 
subject. It is represented as arising from the grace 
or love of God towards the sinner, and not metely 
so, but from rich and abundant grace. That is to 
say, in undertaking the conversion of a sinner, the 
plessed Spirit means to do him a favour, and,a fa- 
your of unspeakable magnitude and excellency.— 
Now there is plainly no way of realizing this re- 
presentation, but by the work of conversion being 
completed. If it be begun and not completed, if 
the influences of the Spirit be withdrawn and the 
sinner be leftin his sins, he may be treated justly— 
_ may, in a general view of his condition, he may be 
treated even mercifully : but it is pain that he does 
not receive that particular favour which consists in 
an actual conversion to God, and an intention to 


os 
Ge 


Pea 
SPIRIT’S INFLUENCE. 3 7 ay, 


communicate which, appeared to be itunes By 
the exertion of some incipient influences conducive 
to this end. It can hardly be conceived that the 
blessed Spirit would commence the work of con- 
version without an intention to complete it, or 
without an exercise of that deep and tender bene- 
volence from which it is declared to spring; but an 
incomplete conversion, which is in fact no conver- 
sion at all, is no exercise of grace at all, since it 
makes no change for the better, whether conditional 
or actual, in the state of the sinner himself. Tobe 
an exercise of grace, conversion must be not only 
begun but finished. We therefore conclude that, 
where it is begun, it will be finished; because it 1s 
incredible that the Holy Spirit would represent his 
proceedings in a light in which they cannot justly 
be regarded. 

4. 'T’o add but one more consideration, Wwe may 
advert to the connexion subsisting hetaaven the work 
of the Spirit, and the work a glory of Christ. 
It is not only for his own sake, nor for the sake of 
the sinner himself, that the Holy Spirit undertakes 
the work of conversion: it is pre-eminently for 
Christ’s sake; through the influence of his death, 
and for the promotion of his glory. Sinners are to 
be turned to God because Christ died for them, and 
in order that Christ may be glorified in them. 
Nothing can be conceived more powerfully to ope- 
rate on the Spirit himself than such an influence as 
this. Certainly, if any object can do so, this will 
call forth his utmost energies and most persevering 

F 


‘EFFICACY OF THE 


efforts. Will he ever relinquish a design which he 
undertakes out of love to the eternal Son of God, 
and the accomplishment of which is essential to 
the glory that shall recompense him for his suffer- 
ings? Impossible! It is impossible, then, that he 
should relinquish the conversion of a sinner; hav- 
ing once commenced it, he will assuredly carry it 
on to perfection. 

The reasoning which has been here pursued 
might be carried much further; but sufficient has 
been said, perhaps, to show the grounds on which 
the sentiment of the certain efficacy of the Spirit’s 
influence in conversion rests. If it should be ob- 
served that we have not, as in the former chapter, 
adduced individual texts of scripture, it will yet be 
admitted that our whole argument has proceeded 
strictly on scriptural grounds, which are of course 
of the same authority and conclusiveness as express 
testimonies of the divine word. But suppose we 
inquire, in passing, why it is that express testimo- 
nies on this point are not so abundant in holy writ 
as on some others. The reason plainly is, that it 
never seems to have admitted of the possibility of 
a doubt. Whether God, having converted a sin- 
nér, would carry on the work of grace to the end of 
life, might have been doubted; and therefore it is 
expressly declared that he will: Phil. i. 6. “ Being 
confident of this very thing, that he which hath be- 
eun a good work in you will perform it until the 
day of Jesus Christ.” But whether, having put 
forth his power for the conversion of a sinner, that 


> 2 


SPIRIT’S INFLUENCE, 2 Ge TD 


object shall be accomplished, is a point on which 
the scripture bears no express testimony, except 
that which is involved in the declaration that he is 
GOD ALMIGHTY. : 

Upon what ground, indeed, it may well be asked, 
has it ever been imagined that the contrary could 
occur? We believe we are correct in saying that 
it is upon no other than the supposed necessity, on 
the part of the divine Being, of a deference to the 
will of man. A man must not be converted 
against his will! 'To speak of the grace of God, 
or the influence of the Spirit, as zrresistible, destroys 
free agency! We care not about the word irresis- 
table, which, if employed in this reference at all, 
means only, as we have said above, certainly effi- 
cacious : but it must be manifest, we should ima- 
gine, out of what a confusion of ideas this objec- 
tion arises, since conversion is not the turning of 
a man without his will to God, but of a man by his 
will. It is a change of his will itself. It is mak- 
ing himself willing, which, we suppose, is neither 
against his will, nor destructive of free agency. It 
is, at the same time, plain enough, that if the in- 
fluence eniployed in conversion were such as left 
the ultimate decision to a corrupt and carnal heart, 
the work would never be accomplished at all. 

The author is aware that the Holy Spiric has 
been supposed to exert upon the minds of sinners 
some influences which are called common, in con- 
-tradistinction from those special ones which issue 
in conversion. He doubts whether any such influ- 
| F2 


76 EFFICACY OF THE SPIRIT’S INFLUENCE. 


ences are exercised; but, at all events, as they are 
not conceived to be designed for the conversion of 
a sinner, they do not affect the bearing of the pre- 
sent argument. 

What has hitherto been advanced may be thus 
briefly summed up. The influence of the Holy 
Spirit is ABSOLUTELY NECEssaRy to conversion, and 
CERTAINLY EFFECTUAL to it. These are sentiments 
of great glory and deep importance. May God im- 
press them deeply on the heart of the writer, and 
withhold him from writing a word, or entertaining 
a thought, inconsistent with their truth, or calculat- 
ed to, obscure their excellency ! 


—S Oe 


ey 


PART Ii. 


The work of the Holy Spirit in conversion, consider- 
ed in relation to the condition of man. 


TuHE influence of the Holy Spirit is, as we have 
just seen, of high importance, nay, of absolute ne- 
cessity, to the conversion of a sinner. Now this 
fact obviously indicates a corresponding feature in 
the condition of mankind. There must be some 
cause for this necessity, some reason why men do 
not turn to God without heavenly aid. What is 
this cause? Is it external or internal; without 
man, or within him? Is it voluntary, or involun- 
tary? Does it criminate man, or excuse him ? 

Hew inquiries can be more important than these; 
a clear answer to them being absolutely necessary 
to a just knowledge of the condition of our nature, 
and a satisfactory view of the bearings of the glo- 
rious dispensation, that, namely, of the Holy Spi- 
rit, to which our attention is directed. 

The uniformity of the fact in all circumstances, 
that men do not turn to God of themselves, as wel 
as the decisive testimony of holy writ, assures us 
that the cause sought for is to be found in their own 
bosom. Whatever of an external kind may assume 
me aspect, or bear the name, of an hinderance to 

¥3 


78 CONDITION OF MAN. 


conversion, none of these things, nor any combina- 


tion of them, can be regarded as constituting the 
grand impediment. In truth, these all derive their 
influence from the state of mind on which they act, 
irrespectively of which they are utterly powerless; 
and were this right, nothing would hinder man from 
turning to God/ The main and only effectual ob- 
struction is within his own breast. 

This obstruction to conversion is well known by 
the general designation of the corruption or de- 
pravity of man’s nature.. But when we have said 
this, we have gained no information respecting its 
precise character ; we have merely given it a name, 
and have still to inquire what may be intended by 
it. On the specific nature of that fact in our fallen 
condition which occasions the necessity for the Spi- 
rit’s interposition, an important diversity of opinion 
exists, which may be stated as follows. 

On the one hand it has been maintained that the 
necessity of divine influence argues, on the part of 
man, a want of power to turn to God; and on the 
other it has been conceived that the obstacle is not 
a want of power, but a want of pisrosrrion. In re- 
ference to the actual want of right disposition in 
mankind, both these classes of divines are agreed, 
the difference between them relating simply to one 
of two questions: First, whether a want of disposi- 
tionis the whole hinderance to conversion, or whether 


there be not also a want of power ; or Secondlys 
whether a want of power is not identical with, or — 


constituted by, a want of disposition. 


< a 


He 


am 
CONDITION OF MAN, 79 


Those who affirm that power is wanting, chiefly 
argue either from express words of scripture, which 
declares (to take one passage for an example) that 
no man can come unto Christ except the Father 
draw him; or from the nature of the case, since, \if 
man had power to turn to God of himself, the Holy 
Spirit could not be necessary for this purpose.— 
Those who maintain that power is not wanting 
(and the writer is among them) do not shrink from 
fully meeting these arguments, with others which 
will be hereafter noticed on the same side; while 
their proofs are brought likewise from the language 
of scripture, as well as from an examination of the 
structure of the human mind, and of the actual ope- 
ration of the Spirit, from the just responsibility of 
man, from the gracious and sovereign character of 
the gift of the Holy Ghost, and from the pre-emi- 
nent tendency of the sentiment they advocate, at 
once to humble the sinner and give glory to God. 

Such is a bird’s-eye view of the field of inquiry, 
which lies before us: a field which comprehends 
certainly a number of topics most interesting in 
themselves, and bearing powerfully on many points 
both of doctrine, experience, and practice. The 
writer would feel little pleasure in pursuing his task, 
if he thought it would be barren of spiritual profit ; _ 
but as he is persuaded this will be by no means ne- 


_ cessarily the case, so he implores for himself and 


his reader the gracious unction, beneath which alone 


true wisdom is either acquired or increased. 


Before entering directly into the discussion, the 


so STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 


reader’s patient attention is requested to some im- 
portant preliminary matter, relating generally to 
the structure and operations of the human mind, 
and the import of the terms in which we describe 
them. 


CHAP. I. 


Of the Structure and Operation of the ‘Human 
Mind. ie 


Ir we were examining the movements i a ma- 
chine, and seeking to understand the causes by 
_ which they were either accelerated or impeded, we 
~ should probably deem it necessary in the first in- 
stance to gain some competent knowledge of the 
nature of the machine itself; or if we should heed-— 
lessly have commenced our investigation without 
such a preliminary measure, perplexities and em- 
barrassments would speedily convince us of its ne- 
cessity. It is thus with the inquiry now before us. 
We wish to solve problems respecting the state and 
operations of the mind under particular circumstan- 
ces, namely, under the prevalence of depravity, and 
the influence of the Holy Spirit. Is it not, there- 

fore, not only destrable, but necessary, previously 
to acquire a proper view both of the structure of the 
mind itself, and of its general mode of operation Vie 
Should we be ignorant of these, or inaccurately in- — 


ES Ee 


STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 81 


formed, how can we proceed with satisfaction, or 


conclude with confidence, respecting the questions 
immediately before us? Upon these subjects, there- 
fore, we shall here enter, briefly, and with the ut- 
most attainable simplicity. We trust that the ex- 


-planations which may be given will be found neither 


difficult nor uninteresting; but if in any measure 
they should be so, let it be remembered that what 
is important should never be considered too unin- 


teresting to be attended to, nor too difficult to be 


achieved. In fact, the topics on which we are about 
to enter are not difficult, and they can appear to be 
so only because to some readers they may be new. 
They ought not, however to be mysterious, to any 
person, and the author hopes they will not be so to 
any of his readers after the perusal of the following 
pages. 

I. It has been customary to speak of the Pow- 
ers or Faculties of the mind, and doubtless it is both 
necessary and just to use this phraseology ; yet it 
should be remembered that, however familiarly we 


“may speak of them, they are things of which, in 


their own nature, we know: absolutely nothing. 
The whole that is submitted to our investigation is 
comprehended in the various modes of human ae- 
tion, external and internal. From the fact that cer- 
tain modes of action occur, we infer that there ex- 


- ist faculties or powers of performing such actions. — 


Pi 


ashe 
\e 7 


‘This conclusion is unquestionably drawn with suf- 


ficient justice, inasmuch as we can conceive of no 
Vi 


effect without a proportionate and corresponding 


82 STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 


cause; but still it is important to observe, that it is 
only by such an inference we arrive at the knowledge 
even of the existence of our mental faculties. It 
follows, therefore, that the proper method of inves- 
tigating the mind of man is to begin, not with his 
faculties, but with his actions. Observe what he 
does, and you will then learn what are his powers. 
Our facilities for such an employment can scarcely 
be considered as less than ample. Tm how many 
forms is man continually acting within our observa- 
tion ; while, in truth, the whole mystery is exhibited 
in our own breasts, and the knowledge of man is 
nothing more than the knowledge of ourselves. 
Let us then imagine one of our species to be be- 
fore us; or rather let us turn our eyes inward, and 
mark what takes place there. If I do this, I find 
that I am PERCEIVING various objects, with their ap- 
parent properties; such as the fields in their sum- 
mer beauty, my children in their early loveliness, 
with a variety of others, which may either be pre- 
sented to me by the senses, or arise from recollec- 
tion or reflection. Besides this, perhaps, I find that 
Tam also in a state of FEELING; experiencing either 
hope or fear, desire or aversion, pleasure or pain, or 
feeling of some other kind, in various degrees, or 
with various modifications. I may yet further find 
myself upon some occasions, perhaps after eonsider- 
ing various motives or modes of action, ultimately 
DETERMINING ; as either to attend to some subject, to 
take some step, or to enter on some pursuit; after 
which I proceed ro acr. These observations will 


STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 83 


be sufficient for the present. Here are matters of 


fact. We perceive, we feel, we determine ; and upon 


the supposition that these processes argue the exis- 
tence of corresponding faculties, we go on to say, 
that man possesses one faculty of perceiving, another 
of feeling, and a third of determining. The faculty 
of perceiving, we may call the Unperstannping; that 
of feeling, the Heart; and that of determining, the 
Wu. These three faculties are principally con- 
cerned in all human actions. 

II. We may now look at each of them a little 
more closely. 

1. By the Unvprsranpine, or the faculty of per- 


ceiving, we apprehend, according to its apparent - 


nature, and so far as it is suited to our apprehension, 
whatever object is presented to the mind. Here it 
is material to remember, that there are many ways 
by which objects may be so presented. The most 


obvious is the eye, which certainly makes us ac-° 


quainted with things with much more vividness 
and accuracy than any other organ; but it is clearly 
not the only channel of access to the mind, distinct 
perceptions being produced in it by impressions on 
the ear, and every other corporeal sense. In addi- 
tion to this, the mind is accessible to communica- 
tion from some beings, (one, at least, if no more) 
without the intervention of the senses atall. It is 
important to observe, also, that objects may be pre- 


- sented to the mind out of its own stores, either as 
| brought out of the treasures of memory, or as result- 
ing from the exercise of its own thoughts. A very 


"é 


ry 


84 STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 


important portion of these last consist in those judg- 
ments respecting right and wrong, of which we shall 
hereafter speak. . 

Now, whatever object,—using this word in a 
sense sufficiently large to comprehend a sentiment, 
or any thing else which may be perceived by the 
mind,—whatever object is in any way intelligibly 
presented to the mind, we perceive it inevitably. It 
is no matter of choice with us whether we will pre- 
ceive itor not. If I look onthe sky or heara bell, 
or am informed of an event, or recollect an interview, 
it does not lie with me to perceive or not to perceive 
these things respectively. I do perceive them, and 
that in a manner altogether involuntary and beyond 
my control. 

It is to be added, that whatever is presented to the 
mind is perceived according to its apparent nature 
and properties. Of the real nature of things we 
know little, if any thing; we have to do with their 
apparent properties only, and in perfect accordance 
with these is every object apprehended by the mind, 
if it is in a sane state. 

2. By the Hearr, or faculty of feeling, we be- 
come subject to the excitement of desire, aversion, 
hatred, love, and numerous other affections of the 
mind. These affections must be considered as not 
existing of themselves, or without a cause, They 
have always some object. We are never in a state 
of desire without desiring something; or of sorrow, 
without something for which we are sorry ; except- 
ing indeed in cases of disease, which, of course, are 


STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 85 


~ withdrawn from the scope of our present inquiry: in 
@ sound state, and in its healthy exercise, no feel- 
ings exist in the mind, unless excited by some ob- 
ject. Until excited in some respect, it is altogether 
tranquil. 

The next material observation is, that our feelings, 
when excited, correspond with the apprehended na- 
ture of the object which has excited them ; as fear with 
the perception of danger, or hope with the prospect 
of advantage. It is impossible to conceive that 
there should be any variation from this rule. If 
ever what I regard as adapted to engage my love in- 
spires me with aversion, I shall not be of sound. 
mind: as long as I amso, my feelings must have an 
exact correspondence with the apprehended nature 
of the objects which have awakened them. 

All objects have not an equa! adaptation to excite 
_ our feelings, nor the same objects equal effieacy in 
allcircumstances. But all objects which are adapt- 
ed tomove our feelings at all, have a tendency to do 
so independently of our choice. A sight of danger, 
for example, does not appeal to us, as it were in the 
way of interrogation,—whether we will be afraid 
or not; but the perception of it tends directly to in- 
spire fear, whether we will or not, and it will cer- 
tainly do so, unless its influence be counteracted by 

some other means. It is, in truth, a general maxim, 
that every object presented to the mind, having any 
‘adaptation to move the feelings, produces znfallibly 
an excitement of them corresponding with its ap- 
_ prehended nature, unless such an effect is prevent- 


Aes 
5 as 


86 STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 


ed by the operation of a counteracting cause. It 


follows, also, that’ our immediate feelings are in 
many cases involuntary; they are so in all cases, 
indeed, in which they are not affected by some vo- 
jontaty productive or modifying influence. 

3. By the Wit, or faculty of determining, we 
form resolutions respecting what we will, or will 
not, be or do. This is clearly not to be understood 
as referring to our outward conductalone. Whether 
we wiil attend to any given subject, or agree to a 
certain proposal, and many things more which are 
wrought entirely within the bosom, are subject to 
our determination; as also, in truth, is what we 
shall be, and what we shall feel, as far as these are 
dependent upon the use of means put into our power. 

The will does not act of itself, nor indeed can we 
conceive of such a thing. We never make any de- 
termination without having a perception of the case 
respecting which we have to determine, nor without 
being moved by something so perceived to the par- 
ticular determination itself. Determination is nei- 
ther more nor less than the answer to a question,— 
shall I, or shall I not?—and cannot be conceived of 
apart from circumstances which give rise to such an 
interrogatory. If there is no question, there is no- 


thing to be determined ; and if there is nothing to be 


determined, no determination can exist. Neither can 
any determination be formed, without something in 
the case perceived to move us to it. Ina general 
Way it is perfectly obvious that our determinations 
do arise from such moving causes, When we say, 


— 1 


: 
a ee i te 


~ ms 


: 
4 
| 


. 


STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 87 


I will do this, or I will not do that, it is because 
we see something either attractivé’or repulsive in 
the cases respectively ; and if we examine, we shall 
find that this is uniformly the case: the rule has, 
and can have, no exception. It is of the nature of 
a rational creature to determine according to appa- 
rent reasons; in whatever case a determination may 
be otherwise formed, if such ever were or can be, 
it can scarcely indicate less than derangement, if 
not rather a subversion of the constitution of the 
mind. 

We go on to observe, that as we never come to 
any determination without a moving cause, so eve- 
ry cause acts, according to its apparent force, and 
tends to the production of a corresponding result, 
by virtue of our intelligent constitution, and quite 
independently of our choice. If, for example, I see 
danger, and the sight moves me to determine upon 
avoiding it, it tends to bring me to this determina- 
tion by its own force as perceived by me, whether 
1am willing to be so moved or not. My coming to 
this resolution may be hindered by the influence of 
other considerations, such as the advantage I may 
derive, or the good I may do, by braving the peril; 
but my being led towards such a resolution is in- 
voluntary still; and each of these modifying con 
siderations also has a tendency to act upon me, 
whether I wiil or not, according to its nature and 
force as perceived by me. 

‘Determinations, therefore, considered as acts of 


; the will, do not, in any case, originate with the will 


a 


88 STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 


itself. This faculty never acts, it was not intended 
to act, it is not capable of acting, of its own accord. 
It may be moved, but it cannot move of itself. It 
will answer to the slightest touch, but is itself ab- 
solutely inert; like the gunpowder, which. never- 
theless the smallest spark inflames. The acts of 
the will not originating with the will itself, but 
being produced by objects perceived, are infallibly 
and inevitably.such as our perceptions are of the 
objects which produce them. They are not volun- 
tary. #, 

In connexion with this statement, and as adapted 
to remove any appearance of paradox which may 
attach to it, it may be important to observe, that 
the cases are very different when we speak of man as 
a whole, and of his faculties apart. Man is a volun- 
tary agent. Both his actions and character origi- 
nate with himself. He is,and does, what he chooses 
or determines to do and to be. His determinations 
are voluntary, that is, they arise out of his own feel- 
ings ; and in this self-origination the voluntary na- 
ture of character and actions consists. But, taking 
the faculties of man apart, such language is totally 
inapplicable. He has no choice whether they shall 
actor not. ‘They are made to act when acted upon, 

‘and precisely as they are acted upon; and however 
they may give rise to voluntary action in man, there 
is nothing voluntary in their own. Our faculties 
have no choice whether they will act or not. How 
should they? The very notion is absurd.- They 
are of the nature of mechanism; adapted to be acted 


STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 89 


upon, then to act, and to propagate their action, un- 
til it produces soepebbsinte by combination totally dif- 
ferent from the character of either. 

Hence it may be seen how untenable the ground 
is which has been so hardly fought, namely, that 
the will is, or ought to be free. Doubtless man 
ought to be free, and we believe that he is so, how- 
ever fallen and corrupt. But, without any refer- 
ence either to the primitive or the degenerate state 
of man, the idea of freedom is totally inapplicable 
to the will, as a part of our intelligent constitution. 
The will having no power of choice, or self-move- 
ment, it cannot be either free or bound. From its 
nature it cannot act until it is acted upon; and if it 
dozs not act as it is acted upon, the mind is no 
longer sane. . 

Ilf. Having taken this brief view of the facul- 
ties of man separately, let us now consider them in 
their relation to each other, and in reference to the 
result of their combined operation. 

The mental processes are often so rapid that it is 
not easy to analyze them, or even to believe them 
capable of analysis. We shall find, nevertheless, 
that every one of our actions engages all the pow- 
ers of which we have spoken, and in a uniformand 
beautiful order. If we take a journey, it is because 
we have determined to take it; here is the-action of 
the will. Something moved us to this determina- 
tion; perhaps it was the hope of pleasure, or a sense 


of duty; here is an excitement of the feelings, or 


the action of the heart. But what excited these 


4 


90 STRUCTURE OF THE MIND. 


feelings? Obviously the perception of the duty or 
the pleasure to which they referred; here then, lastly, 
is the action of the understanding. Such is the 
process which is carried on continually. First, ob- 
jects are perceived by us; next our feelings are ex- 
cited according to the apprehended nature of the ob- 
jects perceived; then a determination is formed in 
accordance with the whole effect produced upon the 
feelings; and finally action is induced, in conformi-— 
ty, with this determination and all that has preced- 
ed it. Viewing the mind. in itself, therefore, apart 
from all modifying or disturbing influences, we 
havea faculty of perception, apprehending whatever 
is fitted to its powers, and transmitting these appre- 
hensions as it were to an inner chamber, the heart, 
where lie a thousand capabilities of feeling, all 
ready to be inflamed by whatever may be adapted 
to them respectively; while these, again, by their 
simple or combined energies, lead to determination, 
and this ultimately to action. 

The mechanism is extremely simple, yet most 
beautiful and efficacious; and, as might be expected 
from the peculiarity of its character, it produces a 
result worthy of the closest investigation. This 
result is not merely an external action. Various 
internal acts and exercises, or permanent states of 
mind, arise from it too; as, for example, an effort of 
thought, or an endeavour to cherish, to regulate, or 
to suppress any particular feeling. But whatever 
action, external or internal, or whatever feeling, 
permanent or transient, may be thus produced, it is 


OPERATION OF THE MIND. 91 


evident it will have some striking and important 
properties. 

First, It will be InTELLIicENT. Every thing will 
be done for some known or knowable reason; since, 
according to” the constitution ef the mind, neither 
can feeling be excited, nor a determination formed, 
but under the influence of objects perceived by the 
understanding. In this respect it differs widely 
from,organic action, such as,that of vegetable or 
animal bodies, which act by the force of physical 
and not of intelligent causes. 

Secondly, It will be Votunrary. Every thing 
will be done under the impulse of the agent him- 
self, and no other; since objects presented to the 
mind operate primarily to the excitement of his own 
feelings, and these exclusively are the impulses of 
his actions. This is the true and proper idea of vo- 
luntary action—action resulting from our own feel- 
ings; and such is our mental mechanism fitted to 

‘produce. In this respect again it differs widely 
from organic action, which is commenced and car- 
ried on by external impulse alone, 

Thirdly, It will corresponD WITH THE APPARENT 
NATURE OF THINGS. Every action being excited by 
objects perceived, it plainly follows that all our ac- 
tions will be conformable to our perceptions, or to 
the nature of things as perceived by us: but every 
sound mind perceives objects according to their ap- 

parent nature; whence it follows also, that, if no 

disturbing influences interfere, our actions- will 

strictly accord with the apparent nature of things, 
3 i 


92 OPERATION OF THE MIND. 


as truly as the rays of light are reflected from a mir- 
ror, or the face of the sky from an unruffled sea. 

IV. In these observations we are of course to be 
considered as confining our view to the nature of 
the mind itself, and the manner in which it would 
operate by virtue of its constitution simply, apart 
from any disturbing causes. At the existence of 
such causes we have already cursorily hinted, and 
it will now be necessary more particularly to advert 
to them. We know that, in point of fact, the con- 
duct of men does not always accord with the nature 
of things as it is most obviously to be apprehended, 
and as it is in reality apprehended by them. Be- 
sides which, it may well seem strange that a being 
of'such excellence as man, and one too upon whose 
conduct such awftl issues depend, should be laid so 
entirely open to the influence of things about him or 
within him, that every thing should thus tend to ex- 
cite his feelings, and inspire determination, and 
lead to action, by its own foree, whether he will or 
not. If he has no choice what he shall perceive, or 
what he shall feel, or what he shall determine, is 
he not exposed, without defence, to impressions of 
every kind, like chaff before the wind, or like a fea- 
ther on the ocean, the helpless victim of his cireum- 
stances ? 

We might here say, that if this were actually the 
case, which, as we shall presently see, it is not, the 
actions of men would still be strictly voluntary; that 
term denoting simply those actions which result 
from our own feelings, as distinguished from every 


FACULTY OF ATTENTION. 93 
“ . 


other impelling cause. But we rather go on to ob- 
serve, that man is endowed with a POWER OF SELF- 
REGULATION AND CONTROL, the nature and influence 
of which it is important that we should rightly es- 
timate. We all know that, upon various occasions, 
we not merely apprehend the apparent properties of 
things, but that we dwell upon them with more or 
less force, and for a longer or shorter period; we pay 
them, ina word, moreor less arrention. We know 
also the result of this. Some thoughts we imme- 
diately banish from our minds, and they are to us 
as though they had never been; others we dwell 
upon intensely, and they produce a deep impression 
on our feelings. Now the fact is, that the actual in- 
fluence which an object presented to the mind will 
have upon us, is not to be measured simply by its 
own nature and force, but is compounded of two 
elements ; the first being its real adaptation to move 
us, and the second the intensity with which we 
contemplate it. A great truth, if we give it little 
attention, will produce but a small effect; while, if 
we give them much, we may be deeply wrought 
upon by trifles. 

Whether this power of giving more or less atten- 
tion ma¥ be properly called a distinet faculty of the 
mind, as by philosophers of great eminence it has 
nie is of comparatively little consequence: it is 
plainly a very influential mode of mental operations 
and the most important inquiry is, How is it brought 


*See, especially, Professor Stewart’s Elements of the Phi- 
losophy of the Human: Mint 


a2 


94 FACULTY OF ATTENTION , 


into action? In the exercise of attention are we 
voluntary or involuntary? Are we impelled by our 
own feelings, or by other causes? We are impel- 
led partly, and in various cases, by both. Some 
pieces of intelligence, for example, are so touching 
that they fix our attention instantly, and rivet it in 
defiance of ourselves; while there are subjects, on 
the other hand, to which if we attend, it is under a 
sense of duty, or perhaps of interest; that is to say, 
it is under the impulse of our own feelings. Atten- 
tion has in part, therefore, a voluntary character. 
‘We employ it when we please, and to what extent 
we please. And since the influence of whatever is 
presented to the mind may be thus regulated, may 
be almost annihilatedfon the one hand, and greatly 
strengthened on the other, it is plain that we have 
in our own hands the control of our feelings, ac- 
tions, and character. Every man is thus put in 
possession of the key of his own heart, and is ena- 
bled to render it a sanctuary for the entertainment 
of select objects, inviolable, to a great extent, by 
whatever he may choose to exclude. If we can se- 
lect the objects which shall occupy the understand- 
ing, we can in like manner select those which shall 
affect the heart, since none can affect the heart but 
those which occupy the understanding: if we can 
choose what topics shall impress the heart, we can 
choose what the state of the heart shall be, since 
it always corresponds with the topies which bear 
upon it: and if we can choose what the state of the 
heart shall be, we can equally fix our determination 


- 


FACULTY OF ATTENTION. 95 


and our conduct, since they have an exact confor- 
mity with the state of the heart. 

It is necessary here to observe a distinction be- 
tween the subordinate and transient affections of 
the heart, and jts habitually prevailing state. Af- 
fections of the former kind are often produced in- 
stantaneously, and for the moment uncontrollably, 
as by tidings of the death of a friend; the latter is 
the result of cherished and perhaps lony continued 
contemplation of objects ofa particularclass. Such 
contemplation must inevitably form the habitually 
prevalent state of mind, and thus in point of fact it 
is always formed: so the miser pores oyer his gold, 
the imagination of the rake riots in sensual pleasure, 
the man of science has his thoughts in his lore, and 
the christian in heaven. When we say that the 
constitution of man gives him a power of self-con- 
trol, we refer to the prevalent and habitual state of - 
his heart. Hecan make it what he pleases, let him 
only fix his thoughts with corresponding intensity 
on congenial topics. And thus has he also an ulti- 
mate power over those violent, and at the moment 
irresistible emotions, to which he is subject ; because 
the lasting influence of the objects which produced 
them may be modified by that of other considera- 
tions selected for this end. ; 

If the faculty of Attention (to use this phraseolo- 
gy) shews us how man may be and do what he 
pleases, it will equally explain to us why, in so 
many instances, he is not what the state of things 
around him is adapted to make him; why his con- 

G2 


96 FACULTY OF ATTENTION. 


duct is so often at variance both with his interest 
and his duty. This melancholy result arises from 
inattention to the more serious objects set before 
him. He sees them, but does not regard them. 
The perception of them is momentary ; they are in- 
stantly forgotten, and therefore wHolly without in- 
fluence. Itmatters not how momentous such things 
may be in themselves, nor how often they may be 
exhibited and perceived; if no attention be paid to 
them, or if the attention they are adapted to excite 
be withheld, they can exert no power. Trifles 
lighter than air will outweigh the most solemn to- 
pics, if the former be intently dwelt upon, and the 
latter banished from the thoughts. 

To this it may be added that inattention is the 
only method by which things fail to act upon us ac- 
cording to their apparent nature. As it is only by 
being presented to the understanding, and by en- 
gaging our attention, that ebjects have power of 
acting upon us at all, so when attention is engaged 
their proportionate influence is certain and infalli- 
ble. As no man can live seriously who does not 
habitually think of serious things, so no man can 
live in levity who does. The fixing of the atten- 
tion determines the character and conduct with ir- 
resistible power, and infallible certainty. 

Before we quit the subject of Attention, it will 
be proper to advert to the connexion between this 
exercise of the understanding, and the state of the 
heart. Some things instantly engage more atten- 
tion than others; why is this? ‘To some things I 


FACULTY OF ATTENTION. 97 


purposely pay more attention than to others; and 
why is this? It is plainly because my feelings are 
more excited towards one object than another. And 
this is equally the case, whether attention be volun- 
tary or involuntary; whether an object fixes my at- 
tention by its immediate interest, as tidings of the 
death of a friend; or whether it engages my atten- 
tion by my own purpose and effort, as under a sense 
of duty; a sense of duty being as truly a feeling, or 
state of the heart, as a sense of pleasure or of grief. 
Hither way feeling is excited, and proportionate to 
its excitement is the attention engaged. 
It is material to remember that attention is vo- 
luntary only in part, and im some cases. In othersit 
is altogether involuntary, as when arising from the 
influence of objects which powerfully interest the 
feelings. Here no purpose is formed to attend to 
them; but the attention may be even riveted for a 
time, in defiance of our most strenuous efforts. It 
is important to bear this in mind, because it shows 
how attention may be awakened in the first in- 
stance, without any option of ours, and so become 
the impulse of further feeling, or the object of de- 
signed regulation. 

V. As far as we have hitherto regarded the 
structure and operation of the mind, we have 
found it adapted to produce a species of action and 
feeling, which is intelligent, voluntary, and accor- 
dant with the apparent nature of things. We 
have found also that man has a power of regulating 
his feelings and conduct as he pleases, whether 


98 GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 


according to the apparent nature of things or nots 
inasmuch as the power of giving attention to things 
as he pleases modifies the influence they are adapt- 
ed to exert, and virtually alters their properties as 
apparent tohim. But there is yet a further quality 
of our actions, to which we must now advert. Man 
is capable of doing Riau or wrone; or, which is 
the same thing, of being right or wrong in what he 
does. This cannot be said of the brute creation, as 
for example, of a lion or a bear, which, though they 
may revel in the blood of other beasts, or even in 
that of man, are charged with no crime: yet ifa 
man were to do the same with his fellow-man, we 
should hold him subject to blame. What is the 
ground of this difference ? 

‘Itis simply this. The mind of man is adapted 
to the perception of moral truths, that is, of the 
good or evil properties of actions. He is capable 
of understanding that some things are wrong, and 
others right. Sometimes he infers this for himself, 
sometimes he imbibes it from others, in both cases, 
perhaps, with considerable inaceuracy ; but let this 
be as it may, the ideas thus acquired are treasured 
up in the memory, and constantly brought into use, 
in the way of forming a judgment both of others 
and ourselves. This perception of moral qualities, 


and even the formation of moral judgments, is no 


way dependent upon our choice. We do it whether 
we will or not, and with irresistible force, though 
the degree of attention we choose to give to the 
process may vary. This capacity of estimating 


GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 99 


actions according to a scale of good or evil, and this 
propensity in every case so to estimate them, con- 
Stitute together what is called the conscience of 
man, which is no other than the understanding in 
this particular aspect and occupation. 

Hence it is manifest how, in any voluntary ac- 
tion, a man may be right or wrong. While he is 
contemplating it, and before he has determined re- 
*specting it, his own mind passes a judgment upon 
it, and pronounces it to be either one or the other. 
If he then does it, knowing it to be wrong, he is 
plainly wrong in doing it. So on the contrary, if 
his conscience testifies it is right, he is not wrong 
in that respect; though, if the action be not right 
in itself, he stillmay be wrong in not having taken 
greater pains to ascertain its character. 

A similar illustration may be applied to the state’ 
of the heart, which a man’s conscience equally in- 
dicates to be right or wrong, and whieh, like his 
outward conduct, he has (as we have just seen) a 
provision for regulating according to his pleasure. 
Whatever emotions the objects he perceives may 
excite, a Judgment is instantly passed upon them, 
with more or less accuracy expressing their charac- 
ter; and if he finds improper affections excited, 
the suppression or the indulgence of them consti- 
tutes respectively his right or wrong conduct in 
such a case. 

The additional mechanism by which an,agent, 
already intelligent and voluntary, comes to be also 
right or wrone is. at onre, sininle and efficacious, 


. 


100 GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 


We are so constituted to know good from evil, and 
irresistibly to apply our knowledge; in acting ac- 
cording to our knowledge, our rectitude, as far as 
we now speak of it, consists; and hence, with the 
same limitations, we are right in dding what we 
believe to be right, and wrong in doing what we be- 
lieve to be wrong. ‘ 

But we have to goa step further. To right con- 
duct we uniformly attach approbation, and blame 
to that which is wrong. We never doubt. the pro- 
priety of this in ordinary affairs, and may think it 
strange to inquire into the grounds of this connexion: 
yet, as we shall see hereafter, it is important that 
we should do so. The case is this. We look upon 
the conduct of men in a thousand instances, and, if 
we see nothing that strikes us as either right or 
wrong, we attach to them neither praise nor blame; 
but the moment we see any thing right, we approve 
of it, or any thing wrong, we condemn. Why 
should this feature of men’s conduct, and only this, 
induce so peculiar and decisive a feeling? Why 
am I to be any more praised for acting according to 
my knowledge of right, than according toa percep- 
tion of sweetness? Or why blamed any more for - 
the indulgence of a feeling that was wrong, than 
for the admiration of what was deformed 2 

It has been common to rest the answer to this 
question on the force of conscience, which certainly 
testifies to every man that, whereinsoever he has 
been right or wrong, he is deserving of praise or 
blame accordingly; but if this testimony of our 


GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 101 


conscience is true, there must bea ground or reason 
of its truth, and this reason it is, for several causes, 
important to discern. It will add, for example, 
great force to the testimony of conscience itself; 
it will tend to check the efforts, and to impede the © 
success, of mén who wish to rid themselves of its 
unwelcome admonitions by subtile but fallacious 
arguments; and, above all, it will.tend to show the 
justice and the glory of our Maker’s ways. We 
put the case, therefore, we hope fairly; and are 
quite fairly willing to say, if the testimony of our 
conscience be unreasonable or untrue; let it be rec- 
tified. : 
Our answer to the inquiry is this. Our percep- 
tions of right and wrong have a very peculiar power. 
And this in two respects :—in the first place, they 
make an immediate and inevitable appeal to our choice. 
We may see many things, and yet see nothing that 
we either like ordislike; but the moment we perceive 
any thing to be right or wrong, that state of indif- 
ference ceases, and we instantly approve or disap- 
prove. So with respect to our own conduct.— 
Innumerable actions might be proposed to us, not 
one of which we should care to adopt or to decline; 
but no action could appear to us to be right or wrong 
without our immediately being led towards a cor- 
responding purpose, either that we would or would 
not doit. Respecting objects perceived as right or 
wrong, therefore, our ultimate decision is never in- 
voluntary ; instantly, and from the very nature of 
these perceptions, they appeal to us for deliberate 


102 2, GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 


approbation or disapprobation, adoption or rejection, 
and these are voluntary exercises or states of the 
mind. 

In thesecond place, perceptions of right and wrong. 
enter the mind with a force imperative and supreme. 
They bring with them an immediate sense of odli- 
gation. Other things may be agreeable or disa- 
greeable; I may like them or dislike them, and I 
may pursue or avoid them, as I please: but with 
respect to things right or wrong, the case is altogether 
different. Here is somethirg that I ought to love, 
that I ought to do; nay, I must do it, or else I shall 
be wrong; it is binding upon me, nor have I any 
liberty to decline or to evade it. Now we are so 
constituted that this sense of obligation always ac- 
companies the perception of any action as right; 
nor can these two things, by any possibility, be rent 
asunder. In addition to 8 the sense of obligation 
is the most powerful of all the feelings of which 
we are susceptible. We may be attracted by plea- 
sure, by gain, and by various other aspects of things; 
but none of these do we feel it dending to pursue; 
we may relinquishthem if we please; but what we 
feel to be right, we feel it also to be imperative—it 
may not be left undone: so, on the other hand, we 
may be deterred by danger, by reproach, and by 
nameless other unpleasing aspects of things, yet, if 
we choose, we may encounter them ; but whenever 
we discover a thing to be wrong, we feel an absolute 
prohibition of it—it may not be done. The sense of 
of obligation, therefore, being by far the most power- 


GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 103 


: - 
ful of all the feelings of which we are susceptible, 
it may be expected to take the lead of them all, and 
in the course of nature, and by its own force, 7 
will infallibly do so, unless it is prevented by the in- 
terference of some other cause. To this sensibility 
of obligation all perceptions of right and wrong 
immediately appeal: an actual sense of obligation 
is instantly excited by them; and as this is the 
strongest of all our feelings, it should, of course, 
instantly prevail. If we suppose a case in which it 
does not prevail, let us ask why it does not? There 
is nothing capable of interfering with it but some 
other feeling, either previously existing, or at the 
same moment excited in the heart. If any such 
feeling were of superior, or even of equal power, 
then we might account for the obstruction without 
imputing blame to the agent; it would rather be re- 
ferred to his constitution ; but as this is not the case, 
the sense of obligation being the most powerful of 
all our feelings, here is a stronger feeling overcome 
by a weaker—the sense of obligation, for example, 
resisted by the love of pleasure. But how is it that 
the weaker prevails over the stronger, and that man 
does not act according to the tendency of his powers? 
It is plainly because he has been misapplying the 
voluntary part of them. Atthe same instant he had 
a call from duty and from pleasure ; he felt that of 
duty to be the most forcible, yet he lent to it so dull 
an ear, and listened so keenly to the voice of plea- 
sure, that the feebler inducements of the syren pre- 
vailed. By his lending a quicker ear to what he 


104 GROUND OF) RESPONSIBILITY. 


knew to be the least forcible appeal, this deviation 
from rectitude has been produced ; and for this he 
is held to be deserving of blame. 

The argument thus far may be summed up as 
follows:—We receive moral perceptions, and apply 
these to our own conduct; each moral perception 
calls upon us instantly to choose, and creates a con- 
scious obligation to choose aright; this is the most 
influential feeling we arecapable of, and has nothing 
to oppose it but a variety of weaker ones ; our Maker, 
therefore, expects that it should prevail; and if it 
does not, it will be only because, by means of at- 
tention or inattention which we know to be dispro- 
portionate to the respective objects, we give greater 
strength to the feebler cause. We wilfully originate 
the evil, and the whole blameworthiness of it deser- 
vedly falls upon ourselves. 

That this natural imperativeness and supremacy 
of the sense of obligation is not only a reasonable © 
foundation of praise and blame, but that also on 
which these are universally awarded, will readily 
appear froma reference to matters of common life. 
Suppose yourself a parent interrogating a child who 
has been disobedient. You ask him, “Why did 
you strike your brother?” “He provoked me.” 
‘‘ But ought you to have yielded to the provocation ?” 
“No.” “Ought you not to have controlled your 
anger?” “Yes.” “Then you have been very 
wrong, and Lam displeased with you.” Both pa- 
rent and child feel this argument to be perfectly 
conciusive : but what is at the bottom of it? Plainly 


GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 105 


this principle; that a sense of duty is, in its natu- 
ral tendency, of greater power than any other feel- 
ing, and that, therefore, if other feelings are not 
controlled by it, it is not only a fault in itself, but 
our fault, inasmuch.as it results from a wilful mis- 
application of our self-regulating powers. The 
same principle is at the foundation of all blame or 
praise. . 
If any person should be disposed to push the 
question a step further back, and to say, My con- 
duct is produced by my feelings, and these are pro- 
duced by the things presented to my mind, which 
I discern involuntarily, so that I cannot help teeling 
as I do, nor therefore acting as I do :—should a man 
say this, we meet him by admitting at once, if this 
statement is true, he is free from blame. Most 
certainly all ill-desert is to be traced back to the 
state of the heart, which is the sole impulse of ac- 
_ tion, and seat of character. Let a man only prove 
that he cannot help his feelings, and he will clear 
himself from all censure; since his heart and con- 
duct in that case would but simply represent the 
objects he perceives, as the face of the ocean re- 
fleets the aspect of the sky. But this is far from 
being the fact. Suppose we take the case of a 
-man already in a state of wrong feeling, as of in- 
gratitude, for example; he is conceived to say that 
he cannot help it; but we ask, Has he come to this 
state of feeling without a consciously wrong use ot 
his voluntary powers? He has surely at some time 
heard the admonition within him that he ought to 


106 GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 


be thankful: what attention did he pay to it? Did 
he inquire whether he was duly thankful, or how 
his gratitude should be properly expressed? Or 
did he turn his attention to some other objects, and 
abandon the duty of gratitude to forgetfulness ?— 
No doubt hehas taken the latter course, thus mak- 
ing himself unthankful when he could have helped it. 

We do not scruple to express our belief that in 
whatsoever instance or degree the state of heart 
may be wrong, it arises solely from a wilful inat- 
tention to what would have influenced it aright. If 
we had given as much attention to every topic as 
we perceived to be its due, and ¢hen our state of 
feeling had been wrong, it would have been hard to 
be found fault with; but if we have been less at- 
tentive to some of these topics than we know we 
ought to have been, and more attentive to others, by 
thus making a selection of the objects which shall 
operate upon us, we have moulded the state of our 
hearts according to our own choice, and are there- 
fore justly responsible for its character. Whatever 
it may be, it is such as we have wilfully made it, 
by designedly dwelling on the topics under the in- 
fluence of which it has been formed, to the exclu- 
sion of others which would have given it a ditfer- 
ent complexion.* . 


* Theinfluence of attention in leading to what is voluntary 
in cases in which itself is involuntary, seems to facilitate our 
conception of the mode in which sin might come into exis- 
tence in a holy being. Whatever interests the feelings tends 
to engage our attention, involuntarily, and therefore not sin- 
fully ; but, without care, it may be engaged unduly, or dis- 


GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 107 


It may be said, perhaps, that this selection of to- 
pics by which a wrong state of mind is induced, 
may be made under the influence of feelings which 
had arisen involuntarily. Some of our feelings are 
dovbtless involuntary; but it is to be observed that 
that these immediately become subject to owr moral 
judgment, by which they are pronounced to be ei- 
ther right or wrong; and if wrong, then follows an 
instant sense of obligation to suppress or rectify 
them. This sense of duty we have already shown 
to be stronger than every other stimulus to the 
mind, so that there can be no excuse for the imdul- 
gence or continuance of a wrong feeling in the 
heart, nor any, therefore, for its further influence in 
engaging attention to improper objects. If a 

» wrong feeling be instantly and perseveringly resist- 
ed, as we know it ought to be, it will lead to no 
evil. 

If the objector should say—But, feeling as I do, 
I cannot act otherwise, since my feelings determine 
my conduct;—we allow it. But we reply, You 
ought to feel otherwise ; and however far gone you 


proportionately : but disproportionate attention produces yet 
further disproportionate or improper feeling, and so commen- 
ces the progress of,sin. Our first parent, for example, saw 
that the tree was good for food, and a tree to be desired to 
make one wise. This was true, nor was it wrong that it 
should be interesting to her; nor, being interesting, could it 
fail of engaging her attention in a measure. But her atten- 
tion was engaged disproportionately, and she neglected 
other considerations: hence undue attention excited undue 
desire, and the indulgence of this desire was sin. Had it 
been as soon repelled as the voice of conscience pronounced 
it wrong, Eve had come unhurt from the power of the tempter. 


108 GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY. 


may be in evil disposition, it needs, even now, no- 
thing more than a due consideration of all the to- 
pics presented to you, to change your whole state 
of mind, and to produce within® you‘a new heart 
and aright spirit. 

For it should be observed, in conclusion, that 
God, in his infinite wisdom, has so arranged the 
circumstances in which we are placed, that 2f a due 
regard be paid to aut the oljects presented lo our 
understanding, the state of the heart will infallibly 
be right. We has properly adapted the causes in 
operation to the nature upon which they were to 
operate, just as mechanical forces are proportioned 
to the machinery on-which they are to act.. Were 
this not the case, the whole world of morals would 
be thrown into disorder. To expect in us a right 
state of heart, when a due consideration of all 
things open to our observation was adapted,to pro- 
duce a wrong one, could not be otherwise than un- 
reasonable; and it must be to the full as unreason- — 
able to complain of such an expectation, when no- 
thing more than a due consideration ot known or 
discernible truths is requisite to its fulfilmeat. No 
further than we neglect such consideration does 
God condemn us; and in this respect surely we 
cannot pretend to justify ourselves. 

The author should perhaps apologize for occupy- 
ing his readers so long with topics which may per- 
haps truly be called metaphysical and abstruse ; if, 
however, they have done him the kindness to ac- 
company him attentively, he hopes they will not 


DEFINITION OF TERMS. 109 


"fail to derive advantage which will amply recom- 
pense the labour. Should a single perusal not 
have enabled any-one to master the subject, a second 
may do much to diminish the difficulty, or anay pro- 
bably overcome it altogetber.* We shall hereafter 
find how necessary a«clear view of the elements of 
mental and moral philosophy isto a proper under- 
standing of the questions to which we are approach- 
ing, and how decisively the principles which have 
been stated bear upon the chief points of the contro- 
versy. Ifasyet we seem to have made no progress, 
itis only because it is much better to determine our 
general principles, apart from any reference to the 
particular subject to which they are to be applied. 
A litfle further extension of the reader’s patience is 
requested in the perusal of the following chapter. 


CHAP. II. ’ 


Definition of Terms.. 

Arrsr the brief exhibition given in the former 
chapter of the elementary truths relating to the in- 
telligent and moral nature of man, it may be impor- 
tant toput down a few definitions of terms relating 
to these subjects; both that we may the more cleatly 
know what they mean when they occur, and that 

= . | 


116 DEFINITION O¥ ‘TERMS. 


precision in their use may aid the accuraey and con- 
clusiveness of our reasonings. They will often, 
indeed, of themselves, decide points Which have 
been long and laboriously disputed. 


DISPOSITION, INO@INATION. 


Terms of definite import are very desirable for 
the various states of feeling or excitements of the 
heart. The habitual: y prevalent state of the heart in 
any respect, we call the pisposrrion of a man in 
that respect. It differs from rtnciinaTion, which 
is not necessarily either habitual or prevailing; it may 
be neither, It differs also from arrecrions, which 
are occasional, temporary, and subordinate states of 
feeling. It-differs, lastly, from writ, which we con-— 
ceive to mean either simply a determination, or the 
Saculty of determining according to our feelings. 


POWER, ABILITY. 


Another term of great importance in the ensuing 
discussion is POWER .or ABILITY; and it is fiokty 
material to have a settled opinion respecting it be- 
fore we proceed further. When may it be said that 
aman has power to perform a given action? To 
this we answer, without hesitation, when he POssesses | 
the means of doing so. Let the defiiktion be tried 
by examples. My power to walk consists in having 
the free use of my lirhbs; that is in possessing the 
means of walking. My power to think consists in 
having the use of the same understanding ; that is 


“a 


a ee 


DEFINITION OF TERMS. 111 


in possessing the means of thinking. My power 
to pay my debts consists in having sufficient pro- 
perty for this purpose; .that is, in possessing the 
means of paying them. My power to be sorrowful 
consists in having a heart susceptible of being af- 
fected by afflictive considerations; that is, in pos- 
sessing the means of being sorrowlul. 

Is any thing else necessary to constitute power 
besides ihe possession of means? and if so what is it? 

This question is put the more pointedly, because 
we shall have proceeded but a very few steps before 
the definition of power above given will be objected 
to, and something else will be deemed essential to 
it; we beg to suggest, however, that if any objec- 
tion be made, it should be made now, and not be 
brought out just when and where the pressure of 
the argument may be most severely” felt, and when 
it can scarcely fail to have the appearaace and effect 
of anevasion. What more, we again ask, is neces- 
sary to constitute power, than the possession of 
means ? 

Is our having a disposition towards any action es- 


sential to our having power to perform it? This is 


the important question with which we shall find. 
ourselves involved hereaiter, and which it will be 
much better to settle now; without asking which 
side of the argument it will favor. We conceive 
that it is not. . 

Suppose a.case for illustration. A man is in full 
health, at perfect liberty, and with employment be- 
fore him, but he is idle; has he power to work? 


112 DEFINITION OF TERMS. 


Another hts sufficient money to satisfy his creditors, 
but he is fond of gaming, and has no disposition to 
meet them; has he power to pay his debts? Arich 
man is importuned by a sufferér, but he is covetous: 
has he the power to relieve the distress? In all 
those cases We conceive an affirmative answer would 
be immediately returned; yet they are cases in which . 
disposition 1s wanting and they lead to the conelu- 
sion, therefore, that disposition is not necessary to 
power. ; 

Or conceive it to be granted, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that disposition 7s essential to power. Then 
it will follow that, what aman is not disposed to do, 
he has no power to do. ‘Though a man be rolling in 
wealth, a love of dissipation destroys- his power to 
pay his debts; and though he be in full vigor, idle- 
ness annihilates his power to work; and it is only 
necessary to go great lengths in these bad disposi- 
tions, to authorise one to say, I am totally unable 
either to pay your bills, or to labor for my bread.— 
A person who should use such language as this 
would be deemed a fit inmate for a lunatic asylum. 
Nothing is more common, and few things are more 
important, than the distinction between power and 
inclination. You can but you will not, is language 
almost incessantly used, and the distinction on 
which it is founded is the basis of some very impor- 
tant transactions; as when an idle fellow is sent 
to the tread-mill, or an able but reluctant debtor to 
the prison. 

To say that disposition is essential to power, at- 


DEFINITION OF TERMS. 113 


taches a very extraordinary limitation to the idea of 
power itself. I have no power, I am told, to do any 
thing that I am not disposed to do, yet there are an 
immense number of things which I am disposed not 
todo, which I have been used to think I could do. 
As, for instance, I am surrounded by several hun- 
dred places, and am disposed not to go to any of 
them. But have I, therefore, no power to go to any 
of them? In that caseI must be considered as fixed, 
_ literally like a rock, to my position,” till Iam dis- 
posed to move, with which disposition -to move, it 
appears, my power of moving is identical. On the 
contrary, the obvious fact is, that we have power 
to do many things, whether we are disposed to do them 
or not. The things are but few in comparison 
which we are disposed to do, and these are selected 
at our pleaSure out of the much larger number which 
we have power to perform. The state of the dis- 
position has not the slighest connexion with the 
question of power. 

It cannot but seem strange that such an idea as 
we have been noticing should ever have been enter- 
tained ; but it has apparently arisen from an erro- 
neous view of the fact that @ disposition to ael ts 
necessary to the actual performance of ‘an action, 
whence it has been hastily concluded to be necessary 
also to the power of performing.it. _Nothing cer- 
tainly: can be more obvious than that a voluntary 
being will never act further than he feels a disposi- 
tion todo so. Though I may takea journey when- 
ever I please, so long as J am determined notto do 

H2 


114 DEFINITION OF TERMS. 
* 

80, it.is quite certain that Ishall not; yet one would 
Genk it equally plain, that my power of doing it 
remains unimpaired. 'T'o imagine that whatever is 
necessary to the actual performance of any thing is 
also necessary to the power of performing it, is to 
overlook the difference that exists between power 
and performance, which, being different in them- 
selves, do not necessarily imply the same requisites. 
The mistake has sometimes been confirmed by not 
properly interpreting a form of speech which is fre- 
quently employed in this connexion. We say of a 
man desperately idle, he cannot work: or of another 
devoted to drinking, he cannot refrain: or, a man 
cannot do one thing while he is determined to do 
the contrary; and then we conclude that what we 
say aman cannot do, he really has not power to do. 
Into the full force of this language we shall inquire 
in a subsequent-chapter ; at present it may be suffi- 
cient to observe that it is very commonly ‘employed 
as itis obviously in these cases, to express willing- 
ness or unwillingness, without any reference to 
power at all. 

There are clearly two very distinct states before 
us: namely, the possession of means to perform a 
given action, with a disposition to employ. them ; 
and the possession of the same means for the same 
action, without a disposition .o employ them. The 
question is, which of these two states are we to call 
power? In all ordinary cases the latter is called 
power; and we are willing to adopt this nomencla- 
ture sigidly through the whole discussion. If any 


bal 


DEFINITION OF TERMS. 115 


person should insist on giving the name power only 
to the former of these states, *doubtless he would 
evade the following argument; but he would also 
neednessly depart from the common, and therefore 
the only intelligible use of the term; while he 
would leave the latter very important state alto- 
gether without a name, and merely necessitate the 
construction of a new one, before he individually 
could be pursued through the perverse intricacies 
of his course. 

We are quite ready to admit the fact, that a dis- 
position towards an action seems to render the 
doing of it easy, and that a contrary disposition 
seems to render it difficult, sometimes even to im- 
possibility. But it only seems to do so. By the 
terms easy and difficult, strictly considered, we un-, 
derstand only that actions are more or less welcome 
or pleasing to us, as must inevitably be the case, 
in proportion as we are willing or unwilling to per- 
form them. It is manifest, however, that our power 
to perform an action is not at all affected by its being 
more or less agreeable tous. We are fully able to 
do. some things which, nevertheless, we deeply ab- 
hor, and quite unable to do other things, the accom- 
plishment of which would give us great delight ; 
so that, after all, though aversion may prevent 
action, it has no tendency to diminish power.— 
However loath I may be to satisfy my creditors, even 
if I should be so-reluctant as to make me feel it 
difficult, and even impossible, yet, as long as I have 
‘the means of doing so, I shall be held by all men 


116 DEFINITION OF TERMS. 


of common understanding to have the power of do- 
ing it.* . 

Too much time, perhaps, has been spent upon 
this point; yet its importance required that it should 
be cleared up. If the reader feels satisfied respect- 
ing it, let him set it down as an axiom hereafter not 
to be disputed, that power consists in the possession 
of means alone; and that, though a man certainly 
never will do a thing without a disposition to do it, 
yet, by the possession of means alone; he becomes 
fully able to do it, whether he will or not. Disposi- 
tion is not identical with power, or necessary to it. 


a ar ac 

* It is surprising that the view of ability and power main- 
tained in this volume, should have been supposed by many 
to have been opposed to those which were maintained durin 
the first glorious revivals in the New England States, and to 
the doctrines inculcated in what has been justly esteemed 
an unanswerable, as it is usually an unanswered, treatise, 
that of Edwards on the Willi. It will be perceived by the 
following extract that the sentiments of Edwards are pre- 
cisely those of this volume. It is perfectly evident that by 
the term ‘‘moral inability,’? Edwards means no more than 
indisposition. The retaining the terms when the sentiment 
was abandoned, has led to much confusion of ideas, on this 
subject, in the Christian Church, which it is hoped, this work 
may, In some measure, be helpful in removing. 

«* But it must be observed, that the word Inability is used 
in a sense very diverse from its original import. ‘The word 
signifies only a natural inability, in the proper use of it; and 
is applied to such cases only wherein a present will or incli- 
nation to the thing, with respect to which a person is said to 
be unable, is supposable. It cannot be truly said, according 
to the ordinary use of language, thatia malicious man, let him 
be never so malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking, or 
that he is not able to shew his neighbor kindness; or that a 
drunkard, let his appetite be never so strong, cannot keep 
the cup from his mouth. In the strictest propriety of speech, 
aman has a thing in his power, if he has it in his choice, or 
at his election; and a man cannot be truly said to be unable 
to do a thing, when he can do it if he will. It is improperly 


DEFINITION OF TERMS. 117 


If he should not feel satisfied with this conclusion, 
let him consider the subject, put his objections into 
a tangible form, and resolutely come to some defint- 
tion of power by which he may be willing to abide, 
before he proceeds to the argument in which it will 
be employed. 


FREEDOM, OR LIBERTY OF MORAL AGENTS. 


A third term which it may be desirable to define 
is FREEDOM, OY LIBERTY, in its application to man as 
amoral agent. Much may hereafter depend upon 
the meaning we attach to these words. 

By freedom in a general view, we mean simply 
the absence of constraint; so that powers, of what- 
ever kind, may act according to their own nature 
without impediment. Thus the parts of a machine 
may be said to be free, when not obstructed in fol- 
lowing the impulse of its moving power; so in re- 


eee ee ee ee emer — = OE RES DOE Se Te A in wea aT caine 


said, that a person cannot perform these external actions, 
which are dependant on the act of the will, and which would 
be easily performed, if the act of the will were present.— 
And if it be improperly said, that he cannot perform those 
external voluntary actions, which depend on the will, it is in 
some respect more improperly said, that he is unable to exert 
the acts of the will themselves; because it is more evidently 
false, with respect to these, that he cannot if he will; for to 
say so is a downright contradiction: it is to say, he cannot 
will, if he does will. And in this case, not only is it true, 
that it is easy for a man to do the thing if he will, but the 
very willing is the doing: whenonce he has willed, the thing 
is performed, and nothing else remains to be done. There- 
fore, in these things to ascribe a non-performance to the want 
of power or ability, is not just: because the thing wanting 1s 
not a being able, but a being willing. ‘There are faculties of 
mind and capacity of nature, and every thing else sufficient, 
but a disposition: nothing is wanting but a will.” 


118 LIBERTY. 


spect of the body, we have freedom when our mo- 
tions are not coerced; and in like manner, as intel- 
ligent beings, we enjoy freedom when the intelli- 
gent faculties of understanding, feeling, determina- 
tion, and attention, can all exert themselves accord- 
ing to their nature, without obstruction. 

Now man, as a moral being, is no other than an 
intelligent being acting under the perception of mo- 
ral truths, so that his rRBEDOM as a moral agent 
consists in the unobstructed action of his intelligent 
- faculties, and in thisalone: nor can it consist in any 
thing else, since there do not exist any other pow- 
ers than these, to be the instruments of his moral 
actions. 

The writer is not unaware how strenuously it 
has been urged that some other kind of freedom 
must pertain to moral agents, such as a freedom of 
the will, or a right disposition, of which he has per- 
haps said enough in another place, page 111. The 
indulgence of such fancies is, in all probability, to 
be referred to that fruitful source of error which we 
have already noticed, the misinterpretation of ana- 
logical terms. Thus, forsexample, the fact of the 
evil disposition of men in their failen state, and the 
certainty of its result in the commission of evil, have 
introduced the words captivity, bonds of iniquity, 
and many of a similar character; very forcible and 
significant phraseology, doubtless, and, as meta- 
phorical language, highly appropriate: but it seems 
to have been forgotten that it is metaphorical ; or if 
not, its just interpretation has at all events been 


ee 


LIBERTY. 119 


overlooked. A man in bonds is not free to act; a 
man with a prevailing evil disposition is said to be 
in bonds of iniquity ; therefore it is erroneously con- 
cluded that he is not free to act, and that a right 


disposition must be necessary to his moral freedom, 


This is the argument, and it seems perhaps conclu- 
sive. But in what sense is a man of evil disposi- 
tion said to be inbonds? Literally, or figuratively ? 
Surely in the latter sense alone. And what is the 
analogy on which the use of this metaphor is found- 
ed? Simply this, that as aman who is in bonds 
will certainly not perform certain actions, so a man 
who, though he is not in bonds, is ill-disposed, will, 
with equal certainty, not perform certain other ac- 
tions. And this is all. The metaphor means no- 
thing as to the actual want of freedom, because in 
this respect the cases are not analogous ; but it de- 
notes only the certainty of a line of conduct in an 
agent still perfectly free: it does not follow from 
the use of such language, therefore, however forci- 
ble, that evil disposition constitutes bondage, or 
that right disposition is necessary tofreedom. Mo. 
ral freedom can consist in nothing more than the free- 
dom of the powers by which moral actions are wrought; 
and these powers are nothing more than the intelli- 
gent faculties of man. If there are any other, let 
them now for the first time be announced and de- 
scribed. Notwithstanding all that may be said of 
bondage, therefore, and allowing to the metaphor 
its full legitimate force, we do not scruple to main- 
tain that moral freedom has nothing whatever to do 


. 


120 : RECTITUDE, DEPRAVITY. 


with the disposition ; but that, in this respect, a de- 
vil is as free as an angel, and the most wicked man 
as free as the most holy. 


RECTITUDE, DEPRAVITY. 


One more set of terms it is important to define. 
Wherein consists the RECTITUDE, and wherein the 
pDEpRAvITY of human nature? Few words are more 
often used in the discussion than the latter of these, 
and a precise idea of its import will greatly facili- 
tate the accuracy and value of its application. 

We have stated that the whole good or evil of 
man consists essentially in the state of the heart. 
Rectirupe, therefore, which is a comprehensive 
name for whatever may be good in man, and is pri- 
marily applicable to the state of the heart, denotes gf 
a right state of it, or a right disposition. DEFRAVI- 
Ty, therefore, can be neither more nor less thana 
wrong disposition, or a wrong state of the heart. 

It is true that the other faculties of man are re- 
presented as depraved, and they do all of them, in 
fact, feel the pernicious influence of sin; but they 
do so only im a secondary and indirect manner, 
through the medium of the heart, on which the de- 
teriorating effect of iniquity primarily and immedi- 
ately fell. My understanding, for example, is de- 
praved; that is, it does not now act as it ought in 
the apprehension and retention of divine things: 
but why? Not through any diminished competen- 
_ ey to act as the instrument of perception, but through 


». 


DEPRAVITY. 121 


the influence of an evil disposition, affecting, not 

-~ its condition, but its éxercise. The depravity of the 
understanding, therefore, is rather but a branch of 
that of the heart, in which the root of the evil is 
planted, and the bitter fruits are borne in every de- 
partment of the man. 

If any should conceive that depravity destroys, or 
even weakens, our powers of action, it will be de- 
sirable for dassed to recollect what our powers of ac- 

>. tion are. We have shown that these are no other 
than our intelligent faculties; the question, there- 
fore, is, whether a wrong disposition destroys or weak- 
ens the intelligent ‘Faculties That it perverts them 
in actual use we allow, and that it sometimes leads 
to sinful courses: which weaken, or even destroy 
them; but it must be allowed, on the other hand, 
we think, that the intelligent faculties are not ne- 
BP sarily destroyed, or even weakened, by a wrong 
disposition. Wicked men have still the use of their 
reason, and sonie of them in a pre-eminently pow- 
erful degree, though associated with dispositions 
evil enough to ally them with infernal beings. In 
whatever degree, or from whatever cause, the ra- 
tional faculties are impaired, in an equal degree we 
most readily admit our power to be diminished. 
The perplexity and difficulty which have been 
thrown into discussions such as those which are 
now before us, by the use of ill-adapted or ill-defined 
phraseology, or by neglecting to distinguish the 
strict from the analogical use of words, must be the 
author’s apology for dwelling so long on these in- 


e 


coitd 


1337) ee DEFINITIONS. 


troductory matters. When a subject is either in- 


tricate in itself, or has become so through unskilful 
management, nothing is more conducive to its sue- 


cessful investigation than definitions and distinc-_ 


tions. In these, indeed, the very crisis of-the argu- 
ment lies. The differences that occur in the details 
of it frequently’ throw the disputants back upon 
some more general topic; so that until these are un- 
derstood and agreed upon, the course ‘of subordinate 
reasoning is perpetually broken, and can never be 
satisfactorily prosecuted. The author intends and 
hopes to use all his principal terms strictly in the 
meaning he has assigned to them, and to adhere 


rividly to the principles of mental and moral phi- | 
gidty p p Pp 


losophy which he has laid down. Such of his tead- 
ers as may agree with him in these, will form agree- 


able companions to him in his course, and he hasas” 


cheerful hope of gaining their acquiescence in his 
conclusions; but to what purpose should any go 
further, who dissent from these axioms? 'T'o such 
readers his reasonings must always appear falla- 

cious, and objections continually arise, throwing us 
back on points which should have been previously 
determined. ‘The decision of the religious argu- 
ment is involved in the principies of moral philoso- 
phy from which we set out, and all who may differ 
from the author upon these, he requests to proceed 


no further, but to apply their thoughts to the recon-. 


sideration of them: for if the difference should be 
irreconcilable here, it would be sure to be so every 
where else, and it would be better to part at once, 


DEFINITIONS. ~ 123 


with mutual expressions of candour and good-will, 
than to prolong a discussion which may uritate, but 


cannot convince. Should they choose to continue 


their perusal of this little work, he hopes they will’ 
do him, not the favour, but the justice, to recollect 
the sense he has given to his own terms, that, at 
all events, whatever they may think of his argu- 
ments, hey may judge fairly of his consistency. 
If any should prefer passing by the general argu- 
ment altogether, the author will.meet them again 
with pleasure on the plain and decisive ground of 
scripture testimony. 


CHAP. ITI. . 


Whether man in his natural state has power to re- 
pent :-— The argument from the nature of the case. 
Arrer these brief explanations, we come to the 

question before us: namely, Whether, in harmony 

with the admitted necessity of the Spirit’s influence, 
it can be maintained that man has power to repent 
without his aid. : 

Let it be distinctly remembered, that we affirm 
man to have no disposition to repent, but, on the 


‘contrary, a most extreme aversion to it; his-heart 


124. THE ARGUMENT FROM 


being desperately wicked. But, according to the 
definition we have given, power is altogether differ 
ent from disposition, and implies nothing respecting 
it. It is simply the possession of means, which is 
compatible with disposition of any kind. 

The question, therefore, comes to this What are 

the means necessary to repentance,-or to induce an 
entire change of mind towards God ? 
. They are, first, The opportunity of becoming ac- 
quainted with truths adapted and sufficient to pro- 
duce such a change. For the consideration of suita- 
ble topics is the only method of effecting a change 
of any kind in our disposition, nor can a change be 
reasonably expected further than adequate reasons 
are shown for it. 

Secondly, A state of the understanding ohydieal: 
ly sound, competent to discern the true import of 
the matters presented for consideration. This is 
obyiously indispensable. ‘ 

Thirdly, A proper connexion between the under- ~ 
standing and the heart, so that there may be no ob- 
struction to the influence of the truths discovered. 

These appear to be all the means necessary to re- 
pentance ; and it may safely-be affirmed that, under 
these conditions, consideration would infallibly pro- 
duce it. If it would not, it must be either, 1, be- 
cause the reasons presented are insufficient; or, 2, 
because the understanding could not discern them ; 
or, 3, because the action of the understanding upon 
the heart was obstructed: all which things are con- 
trary to the suppositions made. It requires to be 


* 


2 


THE NATURE OF THE CASE. . 125 


shown, therefore, whether these conditions do meet 
in the case of a sinner or not. 
First; then, Has the Most High presented toa 
sinner any just and sufficient reasons for repenting ? 
We feel-as though the very question involved im- 
piety. - It is manifest that, if he has not done so, he 
has the whole blame of impenitence to take to him- 
self, pes 
Secondly, Is the understanding of man capable of 
discerning the true import of the statements pre- 
sented to him? Undoubtedly it is, if he be sane. 
If any malady impairs his rational faculties, the ex- 
- cuse is valid; but nothing more than sane rational 

faculties is necessary to understand the word of God. 
__ To receive it, or to have a spiritual view of it, this, — 
- indeed, is not to be ascribed to a natural man; but 

these phrases indicate either a right state of heart, or 
. the engagement of the understanding under a right 
» state of heart; and they imply that which we con- 
~ tend for, namely, the faculty of previously discern- 
ing the import of the divine word, because without 

this it could neither be received nor rejected, neither 
considered as excellent or foolish. 

Thirdly, Is there any such derangement in the . 
faculties of man, that the heart does not now yield 
to the force of objects presented to the understand- 
ing? We know that it exhibits more sensibility to 
some than to others; but the fact that it feels the 
force of any is a proof that the faculty stilt exists 
unimpaired ; while the other part of the statement, 

that it does not feel duly the force of all, is fairly to 


126 ‘THE ARGUMENT. FROM, &c. 


be accounted for by inattention, or a selection of the 

topics by which attention shall be engaged. Let 

the case be examined, and it will be found that the - 
heart is still, gs truly and as forcibly as ever, affect- 
ed by whatever objects occupy the understanding. 
«The means of repentance, therefore, and all the 
means of repentance, are possessed by a sinner with- 
out the Spirit ; bnt the possession of the means of re- 
pentance constitutes the power of repentance ; there- 

- fore, a sinner has power to repent without the Spirit, . 

It might be here said, that if a disposition to re- 
pent be necessary to repentance actually taking 
place, it ought to be considered as a part of the 
power. Thisis justa specimen of the way in which 
the argument is liable to be interrupted, by objec- 
tions arising from its pressure at particular points ; 
but. it is sufficient to say that the meaning of our 
terms is already settled, and we cannot vary. 

If it isstill to be debated what power is, the read-_ 
er is in reality advanced no further than the 110th > 
page of this little volume, and would do much bet- 

‘ter to return to it. 


— > 


THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 127 


CHAP. IV. 


Whether, in the conversion of a sinner, power is im- 
parted:— The argument from the work of the Spt- 
Tit. 


Havine seen the condition of man without the 
Holy Spirit, let us now observe him under the in- 
fluence of this divine agent, and endeavour to as- 
certain the nature of the work which he accom- 
plishes in the heart. We have called it generally, 
the conversion of a sinner,to God: but what is the 
conversion of a sinner to God? Or, When the Ho- 
ly Spirit produces the conversion of asinner to God, 
what does he produce? The question may seem 
too simple to be so carefully put, but we shall here- 


_ after find it greatly to our advantage to have formed 


clear ideas on it. 

Now the actual conversion of a sinner presents 
many details; such as an extensive change of his 
views of divine things; a variety of emotions, and 
often of conflicting emotions, in his bosom; a total 
change of his principles and preferences ; and acor- 
responding change in his conduct and pursuits. It 
is manifest, however, that in all this there is one 
grand and leading feature, one principal point of © 
change, to which the rest are subordinate ; we mean 
the change of the disposition, or the habitually pre- 

5 


128 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


valent state of the heart. Thechange in the views 
is the means of producing this change of heart, 
without which that would be of no advantage; from 
this change of heart springs the change of conduct, 
which could otherwise have no consistency or per- 
manency; while the various and confiicting emo- 
tions which arise are the mere accidents of the 
change, modified by the previous state of the mind, 
and the considerations chiefly instrumental in trans- 
forming it. In a word, then, that which the Holy 
Spirit produces in the conversion of a sinner, is es- 
sentially @ change in the habitually prevalent state 
of his heart. . 
This may be easily illustrated. The state of a 
sinner’s heart towards God while carnal is declared 
to be enmity (Rom. viil®’7;) when converted it is 
love (Col. i. 21:) and the conversion of a sinner 
consists in the effectuation of this change. Once 
he hated God, now he seeks his friendship; once he 
avoided the Lord’s ways, now he chooses them; 
once he delighted in sin, now it is his burden; once 
he lived far from God, now he desires his constant 
presence. This change is what the Holy Spirit pro- 
duces when he effects the conversion of a sinner. 
1t may be added, that this is the principal result 
of the Spirit’s work. In one view it is an wltimate 
result, to which the enlightening of the mind and 
the various exercises connected with it, are condu- 
.cive, and in leading to which their entire value con- 
sists: while, in another view, it is an initiatory ef- 
fect, from which alone any true holiness or trans- 


Sr 


Dae 


* 


THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 129 


formation of life can proceed, and by which such 
transformation is secured. It is, in a word, the sum 
of true religion, which is accordingly declared to 
consist in having a new heart; (Ezek. xvii. 13. 
xxxvi. 26.) the restoration of. man to essential rec- 
titude, and the image of God. To maintain this 
change, and to give it universal influence is the 
whole scope of the Spirit’s operation. 

The next point requiring observation is the me- 
thod in which this grand change in the state of the 
heart is produced. oan inquiry upon this subject 
the answer is ready and obvious; it is produced by a 
change of views in reference to divine things. A 
sinner does not begin to love God, whom he once 
hated, without having some new ideas of his excel- 
lency; nor to hate sin, which he once leved, with- 
out some discoveries of its criminality. In order to 
convert the heart, the blessed Spirit enlightens the 
eyes: and hence he is represented as accomplish- 
ing his work by the instrumentality of the word of 
truth. (Psalm xix.7,8. Jamesi.18. Eph.i. 18.) 
This is the use and end of the change of views 
which always takes place in conversion, that by 
them the heart may be,transformed. 

The views by which this change is produced, 
however, are in one respect, far from being new 
views, since they are only such as are contained in 
the sacred scriptures, and such as, in many Cases, 
have been often presented to the mind before.— 
What causes them now to produce anew effect? And 
what does the Holy Spirit do, in order to give them 

‘ | 


t 


& 


130 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


this unusual efficacy? He induces a sinner to at- 
tend to them, and thus insures their influence. Thus 
it is said that ‘‘the Lord opened Lydia’s heart, that 
she attended to the things which were spoken by 
Paul.” Acts xvi. 14. 

The author is very desirous that his readers should 
fully satisfy themselves, before they proceed, whe- 
ther the preceding is an accurate and scriptural ac- 
count of the conversion of a sinner to God. If any 
of them should conceive that there is any further 
change produced in conversion, he entreats them to 
ask what it is, and not to satisfy themselves with- 
out a clear and intelligible idea of it. 7 

If the preceding view of conversion be correct, it 
is manifest that the Holy Spizit acts herein in con- 
formity with the intelligent constitution of man, 
which has been already described. In all this pro- 
cess there is nothing extraordinary, but the origi- 
nating impulse; in all other respects it is precisely 
what takes place in every change of the feelings, 
and the very method by which a thousand changes 
in them are wrought every day. Here is the un- 
derstanding dwelling upon certain truths, and the 
heart influenced accordingly. The extraordinary 
thing is that a man is come to dwell upon truths 
which he once banished from his thoughts; but this, 
it is plain, makes no difference in the truths them- 
selves, nor in the state of the faculties which he 
employs upon them. Uere is no change of power, 
but simply a different employment of the power 
which has been all along possessed. 

+ 


eer 


THE NATURE OF SIN. 131 


_ It appears, therefore, that, whatever the state of 


man as to power may be before he is influenced by 
the Holy Spirit, it is the same afterwards, inasmuch 
as the work of the Spirit makes no difference in this 
respect. He imparts no power, but merely sets in 
motion existing powers by an extraordinary impulse; 
so that the power of turning to God must, on this 
ground also, be admitted to exist without his influ- 
ence. 

If it should be suggested that the impulse thus 
given should be called power, we have only again 
to refer to our definition, which we are very willing 
to alter, if any of our readers will show cause 3 but 
from which, until then, every consideration forbids 
us to depart. 


CHAP. V. 


Whether the possession of power is not involved in 
the praise and blameworthiness of actions :— The 
argument from the nature of sin. 


Tue actions and character of men are familiarly 
spoken of in terms which convey either censure or 
commendation. Similar epithets are likewise em- 


ployed by God himself upon similar subjects. 


Hence he speaks continually of righteousness and of 
12 : 


-" 


@ 


132 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


sin. The conduct of men in an unconverted state 
he charges upon them as highly criminal ; that is to 
say, the very conduct from which the Holy Spirit, 
in conversion, causes them to turn away, he severe- 
ly condemns. Now, familiar as this kind of lan- 
guage is, it carries with it an idea strictly and pow- 
erfully applicable to our present purpose. © For if an 
action, or rather the person by whom it is perform- 
ed, be justly considered as worthy of praise or blame, 
it must be because there is some peculiar feature 
in his conduct, giving occasion to, and correspond- 
ing with, this peculiar view of it. The actions of 
voleanoes and whirlwinds are not blamed, neither 
are those of brutes; why should those of men be so? 

To deserved blame or commendation several con- 
ditions are required; but the only one necessary to 
be now noticed, is the possession of power to have 
acted otherwise. This is uniformly and absolutely 
essential. If, for example, gman 1s praised that he 
did not go to a gaming-house, and it is found that 
the reason of his not going was his confinement in 
a prison, the only ground of the praise awarded him 
is taken away. That which renders a person 
praiseworthy in the doing of good actions, is his 
doing them voluntarily, that is, under the impulse 
of his own feelings, and no other; and when, there- 
fore, he might have done otherwise. In like man- 
ner, it is essential to blameworthiness that a man 
should have power to avoid the action as well as to 
perform it. If your servant, for instance, has in- 
jured your property, you hold him criminal because 


oe) eee eer 


THE NATURE OF SIN. 1338 


of the apparent voluntary nature of the act; but, if 
it could be satisfactorily proved to you that it was 
“involuntary, and not through carelessness merely, 
but by some external force which he had not power 
to resist, you would immediately alter your opinion, 
and clear him fromcensure. Every man feels that, 
when a fault is charged upon him, he makes a good 
and irrefragable defence, if he can say truly, I could 
not help it—I did all I had power to do. A person 
who should persist in attaching blame when this 
was clearly proved, would infallibly be considered 
as blinded by passion; and sucha censure would 
soon become light to those who might have to bear 
it, inasmuch as it would be consciously and mani- 
festly undeserved. ) 

Let these simple illustrations be applied to the 
case before us. We argue thus, using for conveni- 
ence the syllogistic form:—God blames man for- 
not being conformed to his will; but God blames no 
man unjustly; therefore, whatever is necessary to 
‘just blame, must be found in the condition of man. 
The conclusion of this syllogism forms the first 
member of the next:—Whatever is necessary to 
just blame is found in the condition of man; but 
power to act otherwise is necessary to just blame; 
therefore man has power to act otherwise than that 
for which God blames him. ry 

Which of these positions or conclusions will be 
disputed the author cannot tell. To him it appears 

_ that the possession of power to do right, is essen- 


tial to the very possibility of doing wrong, and that, 


134 THE ARGUMENT FROM 
: . 

if Man does not possess it, he can be guilty of no 
Sin. | Ny 

The opinion that blameworthiness towards God 
is a different thing from blameworthiness towards 
men, is without just foundation. There is, and can 
be, but one'set of ideas suggested to our minds by 
ahi and its kindred terms, sin, r7ghteousness, con- 
demnation, &c.; among these ideas, that of the pos- 
session of power is always found, and it is insepa- 
rable from the use of the terms themselves. That 
God has used these terms, knowing what meaning 
they conveyed to us, and that they could convey no 
other, i is a pretty fair argument that he intended 
them to convey these ideas; but if he did not so in- 
tend them, and has not given us his own explana- 
tion of them, then he has left us altogether in the 
dark as to their meaning, with the additional evil of 

a powerful tendency to understand them in an ap- 
plicable sense of our own. Willany friend of God 
he pleased with this alternative? Either he has 
thus uselessly spoken, or he has used words in their 
ordinary meaning; and if he has done the latter, the 
use of the words sin, condemnation, &c. essentially 
implies the existence of the power contended for. 

It has been said, that no doubt can be entértained 
by any man of bite sinfulness, because his own con- 


science convicts him of it. This is most true, and 


it bears directly upon the argument in hand; for the 
very reason why a man’s conscience convicts him 
of sin is, that it also assures him of his power to 
avoid it. To this extent he always and inevitably 


pp ae 


VHE NATURE OF BIN. 135 


feels himself subject to blame, but no further. Per- 
suade a man that, in any given instance, he has not 
the power of acting otherwise, and you immediate- 
ly free him from all self-accusation in that respect. 
Hence there has arisen so marked a distinction as 
to the kinds of conduct for which men blame or jus- 
tify themselves respectively. +If a man commits a 
fraud, he reproaches himself for it, he feels it was 
a deliterabe villany ; but if he breaks into a rage, he 
says, (though unjustly) I could not help it, it is my 
constitution—and he feels no blame: and Ei you re- 
present to him the state of his heart towards God, 
and attach censure there, you find that he uses the 
same weapon of defence with still greater force ;— 
O! says he, that is natural to me, [cannot ‘help that. 
A thousand such examples might be adduced, but 
these are suflicient to show that the reproofs of con- 
science are founded upon, and proportioned to, the 
conscious possession of power; and that, to what- 
ever extent a man is really persuaded that he has 
not power to act differently, to the same extent he 
inevitably feels himself exernpt from blame. 
Somes persons have satisfied themselves with 
saying that men must feel themselves blame-wor- 
thy because they know they have sinned Sreely, or 
voluntarily. True: but what purpose does this 
statement serve? Suppose that men have this 
opinion of themselves ; it must be either just or 
unjust. If just, it must be founded on their power 
to act otherwise, which is essential to voluntary 


action, and ceeee is all we have contended for; if 


. 


—_- 


e gtr 


co a 


a PL Oe ar EEE 
, renege tai aE a 


Sa 


136 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


unjust, it is only a fallacy of which they ought to 
be disabused. And what is the meaning, besides, 
of sinning, or doing any thing else, voluntarily ? 
Itis to act under our own feelings, without any 
other influence ; ‘that is to say, it is to select one out 
of several things, any of which we might have 
chosen. If I have not power to act otherwise than 
I do, my actions are not free, but constrained. 

It would, after all, be much more candid, if 
those who maintain that man has not power to 
avoid sin, would acknowledge that, according to 
that principle, the sinner loses his criminal charae- 
ter. They have excellent authority for doing so, 
and no less than that of our Lord and Saviour 
himself. “If ye were blind,” said he to the Pha-_ 
risees, “ye should have no sin,” John ix. 46: in 
other words, If you had not the means of doing 
right, you should be charged with no fault in doing 
wrong. And if this is the principle on which ye 
proceeds in the distribution of blame, why should 
we be discontented with it? It is impossible, in- 
deed, to. admit that sin is no fault, since the Senti- 
ment would subvert the whole fabric of the-divine 
sovernment, and turn the oracles of eternal wisdom 
into foolishness: let, therefore, the untenable notion 
of man’s inability, which plainly involves such 
Consequences, be at oncy, and cordially, and for 
ever abandoned. 

Some divines have shown so much candour as 
to allow this consequence in part. Taking up the 
general principle that God blames men only for not 


ar! 


THE NATURE OF SIN. 137 


doing what bie could do, and not what they could 
not do, and-conceiving that men cannot do any 
thing spiritually, but only externally good, they 


_ hold thatmen are not blameable for not doing spiritual 


things, such as believing in Christ. 

It is. pleasant to see the force of truth in any 
measure admitted by antagonists in argument, and 
we may fairly set this concession down as no tri- 
fling confirmation of the principle we have main- 
tained, namely, that blameworthiness is commen- 
surate with power. But to what an extraordinary 
position have our brethren thus been driven! There 
is nothing blameable in any spiritual wickedness, 
they affinm, because man has no power to do any 
thing deatikgnal good. By things spiritually good 
or evil, we suppose we are to understand things 


-good or evil im disposition, or in the state of the 
heart; so that the idea entertained is, that there is 


no blameworthiness in any state of the heart, howev- 
erevil. Wonderfulimagination! Nothing blame- 
able in pride, lust, hatred, malice, revenge, love of 
sin, enmity to God, contempt of salvation: rejec- 
tion of Christ, or in any of the dreadful evils of 
the heart which might be added to the catalogue! 
What then is the bible, but a mass of.awful fictions, 
falsely representing that on account of these things 


~ e€ometh the wrath of God upon the children of diso- 
‘bedience? Is it not strange, too, that, while there 


is no blameworthiness in these inward evils, there 
should be so much in the owtward expression of 


them? There is harm, it seems, in fornication, but 


138 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


none in lasciviousness; it is censurable to strike’ a 
blow,’but not so to be ina rage; it is wrong to com- 
mit sin, but not so to love it. Yet why should this 
be? Does not the law of God lock into the inmost 
soul, and require purity there? Has not our Lord 
declared that whoso looketh on a woman to lust af- 
ter her, hath committed adultery with her.already 
in his heart; and the apostle, that whoso hateth his 
brother isa murderer? (Matt. v.28;1 John ii. 16 
Besides, if these outward acts of iniquity are held 
to be blameworthy, it must, upon the principles of 
our brethren themselves, be because they have power 
to avoid them: but what power has any man over 
his conduct, except by having power over his heart, 
out of which the conduct actually and inevitably 
springs ? They seem startled by our maintaining 
that men can regulate their conduct by their, dispo- 
sitions, but really it is we who have the oreatér cause 
to wonder, when we find them affirming thata man 
can regulate his conduct without his dispositions. 
They would be hard task-masters, if the government 
of the world were in their hands. The yoke of our 
Maker is easy indeed in comparison with theirs. 
Our readers will probably agree with us in think- 
ing that nothing can be more futile than the at- 
tempt to withdraw spiritual evils, that is, evils of 
the heart, from deserved blame. And if they are 
_deserving of blame, upon the principles of those 
with whom we are arguing men must have power 
to avoid them; because, as they allow, God blames 
us for not doing only what we have power to do. 


a ee t,t el ee | 


* 


*. 
MORAL OBLIGATION. 139 


How delightful would it be to find persons of such 
amiable candour, and of clear views too to a certain 
extent, scattering, by a vigorous effort, the perplexi- 
ties which yet surround them! zs 


CHAP. VI. 


Whether the possession of power is not implied in 
the divine commands:-—The argument from mo- 
ral obligation. 3 


Ir is an obvious, but remarkable circumstance, 
that the same things which are described as wrought 
by the Holy Spirit, and as indispensably requiring 
his influence, are elsewhere mace the subject of di- 
vine command, and enjoined to be performed by 
men. ‘“ Repent and be converted,” said the apos- 
tles, Acts i. 19. “Let the wicked forsake his 
way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts,” said 
the prephets, Isa. lv. 7. “Come unto me,” said the 
Saviour, Matt. xi. 28. ‘Wash thy heart from 
wickedness,” said Jehovah, Jer. iv. 14. What are 
we to understand by this? 

The issuing of commands is a thing of perpetual 
occurrence among men; but it implies always a pe- 
culiar condition in order to give it propriety. One 
feature of this condition, and the only one immedi- 


oe 
140 . THE ARGUMENT FROM 


ately pertaining to our present argument, is, that 
the power of the persons commanded should be pro- 
portionate to the obedience required. This is a 
point of obvious and indispensable necessity. Whe- 
ther it may be just or not that any commands at all 
should be addressed to me from a given quarter, 
may perhaps be questioned, but it is at all events 
unjust that I should be commanded beyond my 
strength. It may he possible that all the power I 
have should be rightly at the disposal of another; 
but what would any one have more? Or what 
could a claim for more result in, but absurdity and 
ridicule® Authority in him who commands is 
strictly correlative to power in him who obeys. 
Who thinks of commanding the dead; or of requir- 
ing the living to do what they have not power to 
perform, as the lame to walk, or the deaf to listen ? 

One would naturally infer, therefore, that when 
God issues his commands, the very fact of his doing 
so, as a being of adorable justice, implies an appro- 
priate condition on the part of mento whom they 
are addressed ; they must have power to do whatever 
God enjoins upon them. 'To issue commands under 
any other circumstances is unjust and absurd, and 
cannot be ascribed to the most blessed. 

Under the force of this obvious inference, some 
divines, deeming it indispensable to maintain hu- 
man inability, have been led ¢o abandon the obliga- 
tion of the divine law; alleging, that, as men cannot 
do what is enjoined, and God knows they cannot, 
so he does not expect they should; and that che on- 


il it i 


Ties) gem 


. 
MORAL OBLIGATION, 14} 


ly use of the law is to set forth God’s rights, and 
our sinfulness. Such is the force of system. With 
what eyes can these persons read the bible? The 
commands of God are expressly and directly ad- 
dressed to men, they are worded in every way ex- 
pressive of his will and authority; what could he 
have said more or otherwise, if he had intended 
them to be obeyed? But the use of the law, we are 
told, is to set forth his rights. Yet what rights.can 
he have, irrespectively of man’s power? Rights of 
moral government pertaih essentially to creatures 
capable of moral action, and can extend no further, 
Where there are no such creatures, (and according 
to this view there are none upon earth) there no 
such government can be exercised, nor can any 
such rights therefore exist. 

In order to maintain the strange opinion that 
God may justly command when we have not. pow- 
er to obey, it has been a favourite idea with some 
divines that there is something peculiar about his 
supremacy, which exempts it from the force of ordi- 
nary rules; and it has often been announced with 
oracular wisdom, as an axiom in a certain sthool of 
theology, that Ged’s rights are not to be measured 
by our ability. We trust we have no desire to limit 
the Holy One of Israel, but cherish an unfeigned 
joy in his supremacy and sovereignty. But God 
has limited himself by the very fact of establishing 
a moral government, with definite rules and princi- 
ples, which he has shown no desire to violate; and 
he can feel himself little indebted, we apprehend, 


A 


142 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


to those who have advocated his liberty to do so. 
He means to be a vighteows judge: and if so, his 
commands must be prgportionate to our power, 
whatever that power may be, or may become. 

It is of little consequence, we should raiher say 
it is of no consequence at all, how a change may 
have been wrought in the power possessed by me}; 
whether by means blameable or otherwise, whether 
augmenting my power or diminishing it: the prin- 
ciple never can be departed from, that, such as my 
present power is, precisely such is my present obli- 
gation. 

As to the remaining alleged use of the law (upon 
the supposition of human inability,) this is the 
strangest of all. It is to exhibit our sinfulness. But 
on the above supposition, what sinfulness have I 
to be exhibited? If I had power, according to 
Christ’s declaration, I should have sin; but if I have 
no power, I have no sin: so that, if the law exhibits 
me as a sinner, it exhibits what is not the fact, and 
Stands in need of correction. To deny, therefore, 
that the law of God is given and intended as the 
rule of our obedience, is to deny its utility altogeth- 
er. If it does not answer this purpose, it answers 
none; or only the mischievous one of ascribing to 
God rights which he does not possess, and to man 
iniquities of which he is not guilty. 

It has been imagined by others, that the law may 
be considered as two-fold, an internal and an ea- 
ternal law, the letter and the spirit; the one enjoin- 


ing outward actions, and the other referring to the © 


ee 


MORAL OBLIGATION. 143 


state of heart. The latter, or the spiritual part of 
law, is supposed not to be addressed to men ina 
way of command; but only the former, or the out- 
ward precepts, which men, it is allowed, have pow- 
er to fulfil. It is well that men are allowed to have 
power to do any thing that God commands, for so 
far his ways will appear to be just. But we should 
like to know on what this distinction in the law is 


. founded. The stle affirms that the law itself is 


spiritual; and though some of its requirements are of 
an outward kind, it contains many also that are 
strictly spiritual, and the state of the heart is pre- 
eminently regarded in all. Suc’ indeed is the grand 
requirement in which the whole law is compre- 
hended: “Thou shait love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself.” (Mark 
xii. 30, 31.) It would appear also, that, if God may 
not command the state of the heart, he cannot ef- 
fectually command any thing, inasmuch as all ex- 
ternal actions originate and take their character 
from it. It is in the heart, in truth, as we have al- 
ready shown, that the right and the wrong of every 
action essentially lies; and if God has not aimed 
his law at the heart, he has passed by the only part 
_of our nature to which it is applicable at all. 

If this were not enough, we should like to know, 
too, how a man can have power to perform Bis 
ipanile right, but not inwardly so. Outward ac- 
tions are not ey as are commanded, unless they 
are performed in the spirit which is commanded, 
" every precept requiring an internal as well as an ex- 


144 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


ternal conformity. Besides, there is no way of re- 
culating the outward conduct, but by first regulating 
the heart. A man’s power over his actions consists 
in his power over his heart: destroy this, and the 
other instantly expires. | 

As the very fact of the divine being issuing his 
commands, seems to demonstrate the existence of 
a corresponding power of obeying them, this argu- 
ment will be greatly strengthenigd by considering 
' the awful consequences which he attaches to diso- 
bedience ; a topic to be pursued in the following 
chapter. 


CHAP. VII. 


Whether the possession of power be not implied in 
_ the distribution of rewards and punishments;— © 
The argument from human responsibility.* 


We referred, at the close of the preceding chap- 
ter, to the consequences which it has pleased the 


* It cannot fail to be interesting to the reader to compare 
the sentiments of Mr. Hinton with those of Mr. Fuller: we 
shall, therefore, extract entire that section of the ‘* Gospel — 
Worthy of all Acceptation’’ in which Mr. F. treats of ‘the 
inability of sinners to believe in Christ.” It will be perceived 
that Mr. F. fully maintains that spiritual] or moral inability — 
is ‘‘nothing else’? than a want of ‘inclination ;’’ and that — 
*‘ spiritual power’? is the same thing as ‘‘a right state of 
mind.”’ e are perfectly satisfied that any candid enquirer — 


eo. 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 145 


Most High to connect with the violation of his 
commandments. As he has issued a law to be 
obeyed, so he has appointed a day in which he will 
judge the world. (Acts xvii. 31.) “We must all 


- 


on this point ‘will arrive at the conclusion, that the sentiments 
of Mr. Fuller and Mr. Hinton, on this subject, are identical ; 
but that Mr. H. has expressed those sentiments, under more 
correct terms than his predecessor : 
‘<On the. inability of sinners to believe in Christ, and do 
things spiritually good. 
<<This objection is seldom made in form, unless it be by 
persons who deny it to be the duty of a sinner to love God 
with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself. Intimations 
are often given, however, that it is absurd and cruel to require 
of any man what it is beyond his power to perform; and, as 
the Scriptures declare that “no man can come to Christ, ex- 
cept the Lord draw him,” and that ‘‘the natural man receiv- 
eth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know 
them, because they are spiritually discerned,” it is concluded 
that these are things to which the sinner, while unregenerate, 
is under no obligation. 
<¢ The answer that has frequently been made to this reason- 
ing is, in effect, as follows: Men are no more unable to do 
things spiritually good, than they are to be subject to the law 
of God, which the ‘‘carnal mind is not, nor can be.”? And 
the reason why we have no power to comply with these 
things is, we have lost it by the fall; but, though we have 
lost our ability to obey, God has not“ost his authority to com- 
mand. There is some truth in this answer; but it is appre- 
hended to be insufficient. It is true that sinners are no more 
and no otherwise unable to do any thing spiritually good, 
than they are to yield a perfect submission to God’s holy 
law; and that the inability of both arises from the same 
source—the original apostacy of human nature. Yet if the 
nature of this inability were direct, or such as consisted in 
the want of rational faculties, bodily powers, or external ad 
vantages, its being the consequence of the fall would not set 
aside that objection. Some men pass through life totally in- 
sane. This may be one of the effects of sin; yet the Scrip- 
tures never convey any idea of such persons being dealt with 
at the last judgment, on the same ground as if they had been 
sane. On the contrary, they teach that ‘to whom much is 
given, of him much shall be required.”” Another is deprived 
-of the sight of his eyes, and so rendered unable to read the 


K 


‘ 


\ 


146 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that 
every man may receive according to his works, 
whether they have been good or evil.” (2 Cor. v. 10.) 

This part of the divine administration is evidently 


Scriptures. This also may be theeffect of sin; and, in some 
cases, of his own personal misconduct; but-whatever punish- 
ment may be inflicted on him for such misconduct, he-is not 
blameworthy for not reading the Scriptures; after he has lost 
his ability to do so... A third possesses the use of reason, and 
of all his senses and members; but has no other opportunity 
of knowing the will of God than what is afforded him by 
the light of nature. It would be equally repugnant to Scrip- 
ture and reason to suppose that this man will be judged by 
the same rule as others who have lived under the light of 
revelation. ‘As many as have sinned without law shall also 
perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law 
shall be judged by the law.” 

“The inability, in each of these cases, is natural; and, to 
whatever degree it exists, let it arise from what cause it 
may, it excuses its subject of blame, in the aecount of both 
God and man. The law of God itself requires no creature 
to love him, or obey him beyond his *‘ strength,” or with more 
than all the powers which he possesses... If the inability of 
sinners to believe in Christ, or to do things spiritually good, 
were of this nature, it would undoubtedly form an excusesin 
their favor; and it must be as absurd to exhort them to such 
duties as to exhort the Wind to look, the deaf to hear, or the 
dead to walk. But the inability of sinners is not such as to 
induce the Judge of all the earth (who cannot do other than 
right) to abate in his demands. It is a fact that he does 
require them, and that without paying any regard to their 
inability, to love him, and to fear him, and to do all his com- 
mandments always. The blind are admonished to look, the 
deaf to hear, and the dead to avise.—Isa. xlii. 18; Eph. v. 14. 
—If there were no other proof than what is afforded by this 
single fact, it ought to satisfy us that the blindness, deafness, 
and death of sinners, to that which is spiritually good, is ofa 
different nature from that which furnishes an excuse. This, 
however, is not the only ground of proof. The thing speaks 
for itself. There is an essential difference between an inabi- 
lity which is independent of the inclination and one that is 


owing to nothing else. It is just as impossible, no doubt, for — 


any person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to per- 


form that which surpasses his natural powers; and hence it — 


a ee 


eo 


HUMAN RESRONSIPILITY. 147 


pervaded by a general principle of great importance 
namely, that God holds men answerable to him for 
their conduct: and doubtless, if he does so at all, 
he does so with undisputable justice. But, in order 


is that the same terms are used in the one case as in the 
other. ‘Those who were under the dominion of envy and 
malignity ‘‘could not speak peaceably ;’’ and those who have 
‘eyes full of adultery cannot cease trom sin.’?? Hence, also, 
the following language: ‘‘How can ye, being evil, speak 
good things?” ‘Tae natural man recciveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God, neither can he know them.” ‘The carnal 
mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of 
God, neither indeed can be.’? ‘They that are in the flesh 
cannot please God.” ‘‘No man can come to me, except the 
Father, which sent me, draw him.’’ It is also true thatmany 
have affected to treat the distinction between natural and 
moral inability as more curious thau solid. ‘‘lf we be unable 
(say they) weare unable. As to the nature of the inability, 
itis a matter of mo accoutit. Such distinctions are perplexing 
to plain Christians, and beyond their capacity.” But surely 
the plainest and weakest Christian, in reading his Bible, if 
-he pay any regard to what he reads, must perceive a mani- 
fest difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who 
-was ardently desirous that ‘“‘he might receive his sight,” and 
that of the unbelieving Jews, who * ed their eyes, lest 
they should see, and be converted, and be healed ;”’ and be- 
tween the want of the natural sense of hearing, and the state 
of those who “‘have ears, but hear not.’? ; 
“So far as my observation extends, those persons who af- 
fect to treat this distinction as a matter of mere curious spe- 
culation are as ready to make use of it as other people where 
their own interest is concerned. Hf they be accused as in- 
juring their fellow-creatures, and can allege that what they 
did was not knowingly, or of design, 1 believe they never 
fail to doso: or when charged with neglecting their duty to 
a parent or amaster, if they can sayin truth that they were 
unable to doit at the time, let their will have been ever so good: 
they are never known to omit the plea: and should such a 
master-or parent reply, by suggesting that their want of abi- 
lity arose from want of inclination, they would) very easily 
understand it to be the language of reproach, and’be very 
earnest to maintain the contrary. You never hear a person 
in such circumstances reason as he does in religion. He does 
not say, “If Iam unable, I am unable; it is of no account 
whether my ability be of this kind or of that;”’ but he labors 


48. ‘THE ARGUMENT FROM 


to just responsibility, there is required a peculiar 
and corresponding condition in the parties held to 
be responsible to him; why does he hold any to be 
so? Plainly because of some peculiarity in their 


a ED 


with all his might to establish the difference. Now if the 
subject be so clearly understood and acted upon where interest 
is concerned, and never appears difficult but in religion, it is 
but too manifest where the difficulty lies. If by fixing the 
guilt of our conduct upon our father Adam, we can sit com- 
fortably in our nest, we shall be very averse from asentiment 
that tends to disturb our repose by planting a thorn in it. 

“It is sometimes objected that the inability of sinners to 
believe in Christ is not the effect of their depravity: for 
that Adam himself, in his purest state, was only a natural 
man, and had no power to perform spiritual duties. But this 
objection belongs to another topic, and has, I hope, been al- 
ready answered. To this, however, it may be added, ‘‘the 
natural man, who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God,” (1 Cor. ii. 14.) is not a man possessed of the holy 
image of God, as was Adam, but of mere natural accomplish- 
ments, as were the ‘“‘wise men of the world,’”’ the philoso- 
phers of Greece and Rome, to whom the things were 
“‘ foolishness.”? Moreover, if the inability of sinners to per- 
form spiritual dutic#Were of the kind alleged in the objection, 
they must be equally unable to commit the opposite sins.— 
He, that from the constitution of his nature, is absolutely 
unable to understand, or believe, or love, a certain kind of 
truth, must, of necessity, be alike unable to shut his eyes 
against it, to disbelieve, to reject, or to hate it. But itis 
manifest that all men are capable of the latter; it must, there- 
fore, follow that nothing but the depravity of their heart 
rendergthem incapable of the former. 

‘‘Some writers, as have been already observed, have 
allowed that sinners are the subjects of an inability which 
arises from their depravity ; bat they still contend that this 
is not all, but that they ave naturally and morally unable to 
believe in Christ; and this they think agreeable to the 
Scriptures, which represent them as both unable and unwil- 
ling to come to him for life. But these two kinds of inability 
cannot consist with each other, so as both to exist in the 
same thing. A moral inability supposes a natural ability. 
He who never, in any state, was possessed of the power of 
seeing, cannot be said to shut his eyes against the light. If 
the Jews had not been possessed of natural powers equal to 


e F 
ul 


a 4 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 149 


condition. In such a condition the possession of 
power is a uniform and essential elemefft. A per- 
son may be my servant. and therefore I may consider 
him answerable to me for the occupation of his 


the knowledge of Christ’s doctrine, there had been no justice 
in that cutting question and answer, ‘‘Why do ye not under- 
stand my speech? Because ye cannot hear my word.” A 
total physicai inability must, of necessity, supercede a moral 
one. ‘To suppose, therefore, that the phrase, no man can 
come to me,’’ is meant to describe the former; and ‘‘ Ye 
will not come to me that ye may have life,’’ the latter: is 
to suppose that our Saviour taught what is self-contradictory. 
- Some have supposed that, in attributing physical or na- 
tural power to men, we deny their naiural depravity. Through 
the poverty of language, words are obliged to be used in 
different senses. When we speak of men as by nature de- 
praved, we do not mean to convey the idea of sin being an 
essential part of human nature, or of the constitution of man 
as man: our meaning is, that it is not a mere effect of educa: 
tion and example; but is, from his very birth, so interwoven 
through all his powers, so ingrained, as it were, in his very 
soul, as to grow up with him and become natural to him. 

On the other hand, when the term natural is used. as op- 
posed to moral, and applied to the powers of the soul, it is 
designed to express those faculties which are strictly a part 
of our nature as men, and which are necessary to our being 
accountable creatures. By confounding these ideas we may 
be always disputing and bring nothing to an issue. 

Finally : It is sometimes suggested that to attribute to sin- 
ners a natural ability of performing things spiritually good 
is to nourish their self-sufficiency ; and that to represent it 
as only moral is to suppose that it is not insuperable, but may, 
after all, be overcome by efforts of their own. But surely 
it is not necessary, in order to destroy a spirit of self-suffici- 
ency, to deny that we are men and accountable creatures ; 
which is all that natural ability supposes. Ifany person ima- 
gine it possible, of his own accord, to choose that from which. 
he is utterly averse, let him make the trial. 

**Some have alleged that ‘‘natural power is only sufficient 
to perform natural things, and that spiritual power is required 
to the performance of spiritual things.’? But this statement 
is far from accurate. Natural power is as necessary to the 
performance of spiritual as of natural things: we must pos- 
sess the powers of men in order to perform the duties of good 


K 2 


150 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


time; but if his power of labor is taken away, his 


responsibffity no longer exists. The awarding of 


praise and blame, of punishment and reward, pro- 
* ceeds universally upon this principle, so far as it is 


men. And as to spiritual power, or which is the same thing, 
aright state of mind, it is not properly a faculty of the soul, 
but a quality which it possesses: aud which, though it be es- 
sential to the actual performance of spiritual obedience, yet 
is not necessary to our being uader obligation to perform it. 
*‘If atravelier, from a disinclination to the western con- 
tinent, should direct his course perpetually towards the east, 
he would, in time, arrive at the place which he designed to 
shun. In like manner, it has been remarked by some who 
have observed the progtfess of this controversy, that there 
are several important points in which false Calvinism, in its 
ardent desire to steer clear of Armimianism, is brought to 
agree with it. We have seen already that they agree in 
their notions of the original holiness in Adam, and in the in- 
consistency of the duty of believing with the doctrines of 
election and particular redemption. ‘To this may be added, 
they are agreed in making the grace of God necessary to the 
accountableness of sinners with regard to spiritual obedience. 
The one pleads for graceless sinaers being free from obliga- 
tion, the other admits of obligation, but founds it on the notion 
of universal grace. Both are agreed that where there is no 
grace, there is no duty. But if grace be the ground of obli- 
gation, it is no more grace but debt... It is that which, if any 
thing good be required of the sinner, cannot justly be with- 
held. This is, in eifect, acknowledged by both parties. The 
one contends that, where no grace is given, there can be no 
obligation to spiritual obedience: and therefore acquits the 
unbeliever of guilt in not coming to Christ, that he might 
have life, and in the neglect of all spiritual religion. The 
other argues that, if man be totally depraved, and no grace 
be given him to counteract his depravity, he is blameless: 
that is, his depravity is no longer depravity : he is innocent 
in the account of his Judge; cousequently he can need no 
Savior: and if justice be done him, will be exempt from pun- 
ishment, (if not entitled to heaven;) in virtue of his personal 
innocence. Thus the whole system of grace is rendered 
void; and fallen angels, who have not been partakers of it, 
must be in a far preferable state to that of fallen men, who, 
by Jesus taking hold of their uature, are liable to become 
blameworthy and eternally lost: But, if the essential powers 
of the mind be the same whether we be pure or depraved, 


a 


~~? ee 


t she 


————— ee 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 151 
~« 


- acknowledged to be just; every deviation from itisan 
admitted instance of partiality, wickedness, or folly. 
The application of these remarks to the divine 
government will lead us to a very easy and obvious 
conclusion. The Almighty- holds men responsible 
to him for their conduct ; but power over our own 
conduct is necessary to just responsibility; there- 
fore, men have power over their own conduct. 
_An imagined necessity of maintaining human 


Pane noe 
and be sufficient to render any creature an accountable being, 
_ whatever be his disposition, grace is what its proper meaning 
imports—free favor, or favor towamds the unworthy—and the 
redemption of Christ, with all its holy and happy effects, is 
what the Scriptures represent it—necessary to delwer us from 
the state into which we are fallen antecedently to its being 
bestowed.”’ 
We add also another passage out of many which might be 
quoted, equally decisive as to the sentiments of Mr. Fuller: 
<‘Some writers have affirmed that men are underboth a 
moral and natural inability of coming to Christ: or that they 
neither will nor can come to him: but, if there be no other 
inability than what arises from aversion, this language is not 
accurate; for it conveys the -idea that, if all aversion of 
heart were removed, there would still be a natural and insur- 
mountable bar in the way. But no such idea as this is con- 
veyed by our Lord’s words: the only-bar to which he refers 
liés in that reluctance or aversion which the drawing 
of the Father implies or removes. Nor will such an idea 
comport with what he elsewhere teaches. ‘And because 
I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you 
convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not 
believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye 
therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Why 
do ye not understand my speech? Because ye cannot*hear 
my word.”? These cutting interrogations proceed on the sup- 
position that they could have received the doctrine of Christ, 
of it had been agreeable to their corrupt hearts; and its being 
otherwise was the ONLY reason why they could not understand 
and believe it. If sinners were naturally and absolutely una- 
ble to believe in Christf#they would be equally unable to dis 
slit for it requires the same powers to reject as to em 
race. 


152 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


inability has induced, an unwillingness to admit 
this reasoning. It is alleged that the subject, like 
many others, is mysterious, and that we should not 
pry into such profound investigations. 

Undoubtedly many subjects are mysterious, and 
it is both our duty and our interest not to push in- 
quiry where God checks it. But wpoon what author- 
ity is the responsibility of man»ranked among the 
mysterjes of religion ? y 

Certainly no question can be mote important, 
or more conducive to a practical end, than this :— 
On what ground does God hold me answerable for 
my conduct? Nor canthere be a question better 
entitled to a plain and convincing reply. Upon the 
answer to such an inquiry, the complexionofa 
man’s*feelings, in reflecting upon his character, ob- 
viously depends. If the censure which atfaches 
to him be apparently unjust, or if the justice of it 
be, hidden among divine mysteries, he may be as- 
sured indeed of condemnation before God, but he 
cannot feel any condemnation of himself. Humi- 
liation, shame, penitential sorrow, can spring from 
nothing but such justice in his condemnation as he. 
himself can understand; and if these features of 
character be of any excellency or importance, it is 
not Tess so, not mérely that our responsibility should 
be just, but that its justice should be apparent to 
ourselves. A shadow uponthis topic darkens every 
other; since our views of divine mercy, our joy in 
salvation, our grateful devoteditess, all and every 
part. of Christian character, will bear a proportion. 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 153 


to the justice we discern in our condemnation and 
ruin. It ought to be, therefore, with every man, a 
‘matter of the utmost anxiety do have clear views of 
this point. Not that we should be unwilling to 
leave in mystery. what God has placed there, but, 
respecting the grounds of our responsibility, it is 
yet to be proved that he has withdrawn them from 
our cognizance; and when we thinkof their obvi- 
ous and fundamental importance, it may be deemed 
almost, if not altogether, incredible that he should 
have done so, © 

This is the less to be supposed, because responsi- 
bility is not, by any means, a mysterious subject in 
itself. We are in the habit of holding each other 
responsible continually, and of alloting most readily 
both praise and censure, punishment 4nd reward. 
The principles on which we do this are perfecly 
simple and obvious; and there is a natural and ir- 
resistible tendency to apply them to the divine con- 
duct, as well as ourown. God has made use of 
our own language in this respect, and has given.us 
reason to suppose, therefore, that he entertains si- 
milar ideas, and acts on similar principles; other- 
- wise his declarations are calculated to mislead. If, 
when he speaks of righteous judgment, he does not 
- mean the same as we do when using the same terms, _ 
the language, at best,"is useless: what else does he 
mean? Only give such an unintelligible character 
to'scriptural phraseology generally, and the value 
of the bible is utterly destroyed. ; 
_ And why should the principle which regulates 


al 


sa 


oe 


154 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


human conduct not be applied to the divine? Is 
’ there such a difference between the relations we 
bear to each other, and those we bear to our Maker?” 
He calls them by the very same names. “If I be 
a father,” says he, ‘“ where is mine honor; if I bea _ 
master, where is my fear?’ (Mal.i.6.) Doeshe — 
profess to act upon principles different from ours? 
So far from it, that he draws illustrations from our. 
own conduct to convict us of sin against him; and 
even calls us in to be judges in the* controversy 
which he maintains withmen. “Judge. I pray you, 
between me and my vineyard: what could have 
been done more to my vineyard, that I have not 
done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it 
should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild. 
grapes?” (fsai. v. 3. 4.) Nay, he frames his very 
law by the same rule; ‘‘ Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all 
thy mind, and with all thy svrenara.” (Mark xii.30.) 
Tire import of the last quoted passage is especi- 
ally worthy of observation. Upon a careful perusal 
of it, the reader will clearly see that the law of 
God, in its utmost latitude, and in its highest inter- 
pretation, demands nothing more than ourstrength; 
and that God himself—not man—has made this 
the exact measure and standard of his requirements. 
It is moreover evident, from the language here em- 
_ ployed, that our Maker considers our strength for 
the performance of what he requires to lie in the 
possession of our intelligent faculties; in strict ac- 
cordance with which idea, he calls upon us to love 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 155 


him with all our heart, with all our soul, and with 
all our mind.” An opinion has been entertained in 
some quarters, that-our first parents, to whom this 
declaration of God’s law was given, had strength 


equal to its performance, but that their depraved 


descendants haye not. We conceive, however, 
that the words of our Lord, above quoted, express 
the law as given to man depraved, as well as toman 


in innocence.” If they do not, then the law of God 


* 


must have undergone a change with the condition 


of man; and we ask, what change? And what is 
the law now? And where are the scriptural au- 
thorities for such a view? We know of none, nor 
can we conceive that any serious attempt will be 
made to maintain such a position. But if this be 
the law as now given to us, let it be observed that 
it takes for the measure of its demands, not the 
strength of our first parents, or of a state of imno- 
cence, but our actual and present strength: “ Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength.” 
Such is its language to every individual; varying, 
therefore, with all variations of strength, if such 
there be, and making the strength of every man the 
measure of the obedience which God requires from 
him. ty, 

But suppose this is not held to be the principle of 
the divine government; and that, in relation to God, 
aman is to be blamed for doing what he had not 
power to avoid, or for not doing what he had not 
power to perform; suppose it admitted that God’s 
right to command is not limited by man’s ability to 


156 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


obey, and that he exacts labour beyond our strength, 
the justice of all which is to be consigned (as melt 
it may) to mystery now, and to be cleared up ata 
future day :—what is the consequence of this? We 
inevitably associate the character of the most blessed 
with what is evil and base in our estimation; we 
place him in the same rank with uitreasonable and 
cruel men, with unrighteous and merciless task- 
masters, and even with the cruel monarch, whose sim- 
ilar conduct, in requiring bricks without straw, is 
held up to the universal execration of men, and 
aroused the indignant vengeance of heaven. We 


set up religion in direct opposition to the common 


sense and indestructible principles of mankind. We 
tell them what they never can believe, and what, if 
they could believe, it would only increase their en- 
mity to God; what is adapted to attach scorn to pro- 
fessions of justice, and turns declarations of mercy 
into ridicule. That these effects are not produced 
in pious minds we allow, but they are produced to a 
most deplorable extent in the minds of the ungodly ; 
they naturally and justly follow from the premises, 
and not at all the less so because they are left*to 
slumber in some persons, under the general plea 
that the subject is mysterious. We maintain that 
it is not at all mysterious, and should be greatly as- 
tonished indeed if the Almighty had left in mystery 
any thing by which his name could be so dishonor- 
ed. The mysteries of religion are things above 
reason, not things contrary to it; nor can they be so, 
for none such are there in religion to conceal. We 


o HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 157 


can conceive no argument to be plainer or more de- 
cisive than this: God holds us justly responsible ; 
proportionate power“is necessary to just responsi- 
bility ; therefore, we have power to be and to do all 
that for which God holds us responsible. 

If we examine the nature of the power which is 
considered necessary to just responsibility among 
men, we shall find it to be precisely that which we 
all possess in relation to God. It is the possession 
of means. A man is blamed or punished for not 
paying his debts, who has the means of doing so, 
that is, money, within his reach; and the same in 
every other case. According to the view we have 
taken of the structure and operation of the mind, we 
have the means of being all that God expects us to 
be; or, in other words, we have the power of being 
so, Taking, therefore, the same ground which 
satisfies every one of the Gustice of responsibility 
among men, we find justice equally manifest in our 
responsibility to God: why should any thing addi- 
tional be desired.in this case? Are we dissatisfied 
with this state of things ? 

The argument we have just drawn from the 
principle of responsibility is greatly strengthened, 
by adverting” to the awful magnitude of the conse- 
quences which the Supreme Governor has attached to 
disobedience. Ina case in which the result in sus- 
pense was trivial, it might he comparatively unim- 
portant to be scrupulous about the principle. But 
sn the case. before us the issue is most momentous. 
The futurity which is to be decided according to 


158 THE ARGUMENT FROM ‘ * 


our present conduct, comprehends by far the most 
important portion of our being, its highest joys or 
its deepest sorrows ; they are*joys and sorrows, for 
the description of which all sources of earthly illus- — 
tration have. been employed, nay, theyghave been — 
exhausted, and yet they have been proved inade- 
quate ; they are to be imparted by God’s own hand, 
then, unrestrained, and acting with an energy there- 
fore altogether beyond conception; and finally, they 
are to be perpetual, admitting, throughout all eter- 
nity, of no change but augmentation, according to 
their respective natures. Is the ground upon which 
I am subjected to one of the alternatives of such a 
destiny to be concealed from me? 

Nor is this all. In the infliction of indignation 
so terrible upon his creatures, it is of the utmost 
moment that the character of God should be cleared 
of every dark suspicion, by a most vivid and irre- 
sistible conviction in the mind of every sinner of 
the justice of his doom ; and this not merely at the 
time of its endurance, when it can be of no use to 
him; but during the time of probation, when it 
might exercise a beneficial influence on his course. 
To imagine that, when such issues as these are 
suspended on the event, God should Have so trifled 
with immortal creatures, and his creatures too, as 
to say, I will deal with you according to your cha- 
racter, when they have no power to form that cha- 
racter to good or ill, is afflictive beyond all suffer- 
ance; nor can a sentiment which involves this 
consequence ultimately stand. “God forbid: for 


oft 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 159 


then how shall God judge the world?” (Romans 
ili. 6. ) 

It has sometimes been conceived sufficient to say 
that the supposed mystery attending the responsi- 
bility of man will be cleared up hereafter, and that 
no doubt will be entertained of it at the judgment day. 
Most unquestionably this is a truth; but a truth 
which no way tends to lessen the importance of 
satisfactory information on the same subject now. 
The justice of his responsibility is a thing which 
should obviously be made apparent to a sinner, not 
merely at the time of his punishment, to silence him 
in his sufferings, but during the period of his proba- * 
tion, to quicken him in his escape. To suppose 
knowledge comrhunicated then which is not acces- 
sible now, is to suppose the existence of a new case, 
in which no probation is granted, but punishment 
inflicted without opportunity of refuge. It would 
enable asinner to say, Jf I could have known this 
before, I might have been a different man: whereas 
the equitable character of the final judgment obvi- 
ously lies in its simply carrying out the principles 
of the probationary state, and rewarding every man 
according to that which he might have known, as 
determining the character of that which he has done. 
We have no need to hesitate in saying, therefore, 
that the grounds éxhibited as those of our respon- 
sibility. hereafter, must be precisely the same as 
those exhibited now; and that if the subject be 
mysterious in this world, it can receive no elucida- 
tion in the next. 

= 


om 


160 - HE ARGUMENT FROM » 


‘Another method by which it has been conceived 
reconcilable with common sense that God should so 
awfully punish men for not doing what they have 
not power to do, is by such a statement as follows: 
Though man has not power to repent and turn to 
God of himself, yet, God is willing to give him pow- 
er, having promised to impart his Holy Spirit te 
them that ask it. Now, itis continued, man has 
power. to ask for the Spirit, and he ought to pray 
for it, in which case he would have power bestowed 
for all the rest of his duty. 

It is an undoubted truth that God has promised 
to give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him, and 
it is a most blessed encouragement to us under the 
experience of our desperate depravity ; but the pre- 
ceding statement is liable to several objections. 

It proceeds upon the assumption of a totally in- 
admissible principle, namely, that repentance may 
bea sinner’s duty at the time that he has not power to 
perform tt. if power should be imparted, whether 
by the Holy Spirit or in any other method, then un- 
questionably it would be his duty; but this idea of 
praying for power to repent implies that the obliga- 
tion of repentance exists before the power is receiv- 
ed, which we conceive to be impossible and ab- 
surd. 

This assumption is also contradicted by a part of 
the statement itself. A mancan pray, it is alleged 
and therefore he ought to pray, and will be jusily 


blameable if he do not. Most admirable and unde- 


niable! But the converse surely follows, that as 


i 


oo 


— eK 


Oe 


eS ee 


" 


ge, 


= 


i 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 161 


man cannot repent, he is under no obligation to re- 
pent, and for impenitence is liable to no condemna- 
tion. Else it might be equally affirmed that men 
ought to pray though they could not pray, which 
this hypothesis very carefully and very wisely 
avoids. Yét why should we be more willing to 
say that they ought to repent when they cannot re- 
pent? Is not the principle in both cases the same? 
The statement shows an apparent desire to avoid 
this inconsistency,; yet by this very principle it de- 
stroys itself. Indeed error is always a suicide. 
Kurther, wpon the hypothesis under consideration, 
the direct and immediate obligation of a sinner is to 
pray, and not to repent, to turn to God, or to be- 
lieve in Christ, for all which he has no power, and 
which therefore it were vain to attempt to perform. 
His duty is merely to pray that power may be given 
him for these ends. We conceive this to be a per- 
version of the aspect of scriptural exhortation, and 
a striking deviation from the address of the gospel. 
We know, indeed, that Simon was exhorted to pray, 
but it was for pardon of sin, not for the Holy Spi- 
rit; and besides, the encouragement to pray came 
after an exhortation to repent. See Acts viil. 22. 
And this is the uniform address of the gospel. “ Re- 
pent ye, therefore, and be converted. Except ye 
repent, ye shall all likewise perish. God now com- 
 mandeth all men every where to repent. Repent 
ye, and believe the gospel.” (Acts iii. 19. Luke xii. 
Acts xvii. 30. Mark i, 15.) This. is. required of 
sinners as their first and immediate duty, without the 


4 


162 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


at 

intervention of any other act. The address of our 
brethren, however, must be of a totally different 
kind. It must be to this effect: ““Wedo not ex- 
hort you to repentance, or conversion, or faith in 
Christ, because you have not power to perform 
them; but we exhort youto pray. Youcan pray. — 
Pray, therefore, for the Holy Spirit to enable you 7 
to repent.” Now we ask where the pattern of this ~ 
address is in the holy scriptures? Or, if there be 

| 


Se ee ee 


none, by what authority is it introduced, to modify 
and supersede the wisdom and power of God? Can 
any thing more effectually. condemn a hypothesis, 
than its compelling its advocates to abandon” so 
principal a feature of the divine word? This ve- — 
rily is “another gospel.” * F 
MR Ne AACE SO OLY: SARI, els (een a ae 

* As the sentiments here expressed respecting prayer for 
the ‘Spirit have been represented as supporting those to 
which they are in fact directly opposed, it affords the writer 
great satisfaction to present proof that the views of the most 
successful opponent in his day of those sentiments which 
are now propagating so extensively on this side the atlantic, 
accorded with those of the author of this work 

‘It is the duty of ministers not only to exhort their carnal 
auditors to believe in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their 
souls; but dé is at our PERIL to ExHORT them to any thing 
short of it, or which does not 1NvoLvE or ImMPLy it. -I am 
aware that such an idea may startle many of our readers, 
and some who are engaged in the christian ministry. We 
have sunk into such a compromising way of dealing with the 
unconverted as to have well nigh lost the spirit of the primi- 
tive preachers; and hence it is that sinners, of every des- 
cription, can sit so quietly as they do, year after year, in our 

laces of worship. It was not so with the hearers of Peter _ 
and Paul. They were either ‘‘ pricked in the heart’’ in one 
way, or ‘‘cut to the heart”? in another. Their preaching — 
commended itself to ‘‘ every man’s conscience in the sight of © 
God.” How shall we account for this difference? Is there — 
not some important error or defect in our ministrations? 


& 


aes is , ¥ * 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 163 


Ags 


_ There is here also another inconsistency. The 
Statement supposes a man to pray for power to re- 
pent; that is, ¢o pray before he repents, or, which is 
the same thing, to pray in impenitence and unbe« 
UTR CMR EEO Lee or ree etal yt Sa 


have no reference to the preaching of those who disown the 
divinity or atonement of Christ, on the one hand, whose ser- 
mons are little more than harangues on morality, nor to that 
of gross Antinomians on the other, whose chief business it is 
to feed the vanity and malignity of one part of their audi- 
ence, and the sin- extenuating principles of the other. These 
are errors the folly of which is «manifest to all men” who 
pay any serious regard to the religion of the New Testa- 
ment. I refer to those who are commonly reputed ‘evange- 
lical’ and who approve of addresses to the unconverted, I 
hope no apology is necessary for an attempt to exhibit the 
scriptural manner of preaching. If it affects the labors of 
some of my brethren, I cannot deny but that it may also af- 
fect my own. I conceive there ‘js scarcely a minister 
amongst us whose preaching has not been more or less in- 
fluenced by the lethargic systems of the age. 

Christ and his apostles, without any hesitation, called on 
sinners to ‘‘ repent, and believe the gospel ;” but we, consi- 
dering them as poor, impotent, and depraved creatures, have 
been disposed to drop this part of the christian Ministry.— 
Some may have felt afraid of being accounted legal ; others 
have really thought it inconsistent. Considering such 
_. things as beyond the power of their hearers, they seem to 
have contented themselves with pressing on them things 
~~ which they could perform, still continuing the enemies of 
Christ; such as behaving decently in society, reading the 
scriptures, and attending the means of grace. Thus it is that 
_ hearers of this description sit at ease in our congregations, 

Having done their duty, the minister has nothing more to 
say to them: unless, indeed, it be to tell them, occasionally, 
that something more is necessary to salvation. But, as this 
implies no guilt on their part, they sit unconcerned, conceiv- 
_ ing that all that is required of them is «to lie in the way, 
and to wait the Lord’s time.”’ But is this the religion of the 
» «scriptures? Where does ita pear that the prophets or apos- 
"tiles ever treated that kind o inability which is merely the 
effect of reigning aversion as affording any excuse? And 
_ where have they descended, in their exhortations, to things 
mich might be done and the parties still continue the ene- 
mies of God? Instead of leaving out every thing 
| L 


c 


of a spi- 


ue 


dy 


> 


“— Cte yo) SPT Be ae eg 


+ 
Lodi! THE ARGUMENT FROM 


lief.. What sort of prayer can this be? Or wnt 
acceptance can it find with God ? Can any suppli- 
cation be gratefél to him from a man who is yet an 
enemy to him, or any which is not presented in a 


ritual nature, because their hearers could not find in their 
hearts to comply with it, it may safely be affirmed they ex; 
horted to nothing else; treating such inability not only as of © 
no account, with regard to the lessening of obligation, but as 
rendering the subject of it worthy of the severest rebuke. 
There is another species of preaching which proceeds upon 
much the same principle. Repentance towards God, and 
faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, are allowed to be duties 5 
but not immediate duties. ‘The sinner is considered as una- 
ble to comply with them, and therefore they are not urged 
upon him; but instead of them he is directed to ‘‘pray for 
the Holy Spivit, to enable him to repent and believe ;”’ and 
this it seems he can do, notwithstanding the aversion of his 
heart from every thing of the kind. But, if any man be re- 
quired to pray for the Holy Spirit, it must be either sincere; 
ly#and in the name of Jesus; or insincerely, and in some 
other way. ‘The latter I suppose will be allowed to be an 
abomination in the sight of God; he cannot therefore be re- 
quired to do this; and, as to the former, it is just as difficult 
and as opposite to the carnal heart as repentance and faith 
themselves.» Indged, it amounts to the same thing; for a 
sincere desire after a spiritual blessing presented in the name 
of Jesus is no other than ‘‘ the prayer of faith.” 
’ Peter exhorted Simon to pray, not with an impenitent 
heart that he might obtain repentance, but with a penitent 
one that he might obtain forgiveness; and this no doubt in 
the only way in which it was to be obtained, ‘‘ through Je- 
sus Christ.”” ‘‘Repent,”? saith he, ‘and pray to God, if 
erhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” 
ur Saviour directed his disciples to pray for the ‘‘Holy Spi- 
rit :”? but surely the prayer which they were encouraged to 
offer was to be sincere, and with an eye to the Saviour ; that 
is, it was ‘‘the prayer of faith,’”? and therefore could not be 
a duty directed to be performed antecedently and in order to 
the obtaining of it. a 
The mischief arising from this way of preaching is consi- 
derable. First: It gives up a very important question to the 
sinner, even that question whichis at issue between God and | 
conscience on the one hand, and a self-righteous he \ 
Other: namely, whether he be obliged immediately 


- 


ee ae ee Mme Pai etme NOR RES yam eRe 
ee 
. HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 165 


Saviour’s name? Yet if a man prays in the name 
of Christ, or as a friend to God, he is no longer in 
unbelief or impenitence ; he has both repented and 
believed, at the very moment when he is praying 
for power to do so. 


pent and believe the gospel. ‘I could find nothing in the 
scriptures,”? says he, ‘‘that would give me any comfort in 
my present condition; nothing short of ‘ repent and believe,’ 
which are things I cannot comply with ; but I havé gained it 
from my good minister. Now my heart is at ease. _ fam not 
obliged immediately to repent and sue for mercy in the name 
of Jesus. It is not therefore my sin that donot. AllI am 
obliged to is to pray God to help me to do so; and that I do.”’ 
Thus, after a bitter conflict with seripture and conscience, 
which have pursued him through all his windings and press- 
ed upon him the call of the gospel, he finds a shelter in the 
house of God! Such counsel, instead of aiding the sinner’s 
‘convictions, [which, as ‘‘laborers with God,” is our proper 
business,;] has many a time been equal to a victory over 
them, or at least to the purchase of an armistice. Secondly: 
It deceives the soul. He understands it as a compromise, 
and so acts upon it. For though he be in fact as far from 
sincerely praying for repentance as from repenting, and just 
as unable to desire faith in Christ as to exercise it, yet he 
does not think so. He reckons himself very desirous of 
those things. The reason is, he takes that indirect desire af- 
ter them, which consists in wishing to be converted, (or any 
thing, however disagreeable in itself) that he may escape the 
wrath to come, to be the desire of grace; and, being con- 
scious of possessing this, he considers himself in a fair way 
at least of being converted. ‘Thus he deceives his soul ; and 
thus he is helped forward in his delusion! Nor is this all: 
he feels himself set at liberty from the hard requirement of 
returning immediately to God by Jesus Christ, as utterly un- 
worthy ; and, being told to pray that*he may be enabled to 
do so, he supposes that such prayer will avail him, or that 
God will give him the power of repenting and believing in 
% answer to his prayers: prayers, be it observed, which must 
necessarily be offered up with au impenitent unbelieving 
heart. This just suits his self-righteous spirit: but alas, all 
is délusicn ! : 
** You have no relief then,’’ say some, “ for'the sinner.’? I 
er, if the gospelor any of its blessings will relieve him 
ere is no want of relief. But if there be nothing id Christ, 


e ? 
~~ 


oe) r Tre * - : 
* ony, 
, q 


166 . THE ARGUMENT FROM 


But let us look yet a little more narrowly at that 
which a sinner, on this supposition, is exhorted to 
do. He is urged to pray; for what ? not for par- 
don, nor for deliverance from the wrath to come; 
nor for peace of conscience, or purity of heart ; but 
for power. For power? Why power is the very _ 
thing which creates both his responsibility and his 
danger, and isethe last thing in the world which a 
wicked man would wish to possess. Nothing can — 
be more gratifying to him than to learn that he has 
no power to repent, since he may then be quite cer- 
tain that it cannot be his duty, and that the neglect 
of it cannot expose him to any just condemnation. — 
This is just as he would have it: and if you tell — 
him that in a certain quarter he may obtain power, 
his reply might naturally be, “I would rather not 
obtain it; it would impose upon me new duties, 


— 


or grace, or heaven, that will suit his inclination, it is not for 
me to furnish him with any thing else, or to encourage him 
to hope that things will come to a good issue. The only pos- 
sible. way of relieving a sinner, while his heart is averse 
from God, is by lowermg the requirements of heaven to meet 
his inclination; or in some way to model the gospel to his 
mind. But to relieve him in this manner is at my peril. If 
I were commissioned to address a company of men who had 
engaged in an unprovoked rebellion against their king and 
country, what ought Ltosay tothem? I-might make use of 
authority or entreaty§as occasion might require; I might 
caution, warn, threaten, or persuade them; but there would 
be a point from which I must not depart, Be ye reconciled to 
our rightful sovereign ; lay down arms and submit to mercy ! 
Mo this I must inviolably adhere. They might allege that 
they could not comply with such hard terms. Should I ad- 
mit their plea, and direct them only to such conduct as might — 
consist with a rebellious spirit, instead of recovering them — 
from gpbeltion, I should go far towards denominating myself 
a rebel, Tehoali 


a 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 167 


and create fearful responsibilities, which I am very 
happy to avoid.” This strange notion, therefore, 
makes it dependent upon man himself whether he 
will have power or not; and leaves it to a sinner 
by never praying for power, to exclude himself 
from ever being answerable to God for his impeni- 
tence. 

But we have not yet done. We should like to 
know upon what grounds it ts affirmed that a sinner 
can pray. Any available or acceptable prayer, or 
- in othet words, any real prayer, must be in spirit 
_and in truth ; it must express the state of the heart. 
Now sucha state of heart as would be expressed in 
prayer for the Holy Spirit, would certainly be to- 
tally d'ssimilar to the ordinary and previous state of 
a sinner’s mind. If he has power to pray for the 
Spirit, therefore, he has power to produce this 
change in the state of his mind. But this change 
is of the same nature, and as great in degree, as 
that implied in repenting of sin and turning to 
God; and if a sinner has power for the one, how 
has he not power for the other? Besides, does not 
the fact of praying for the Spirit inevitably carry 
with it the idea of repentance and reconciliation to 
God? Can we conceive of a man still loving ini- 
quity and hating God, Pouring out his heart in 
_ breathings after the iawane and soul-subduing in- 

~ fluences of the heavenly dove ? 
. It requires to be asked, moreover, whether sinners 
really have the power to pray. We, of course, be- 
“heve” that they have; but we are convinced that 
' L2 


e 


; ; - oS ae 
ny re pe » 3s 


- 168 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


they have it in no other sense than that in which 
they have also power to repent. The passages of 
scripture and other arguments which are brought to 
show that men have not power to repent, would 
equally demonstrate that they have not power to 
pray. ‘ Without me,” says our Lord, “ye can do 
nothing: (John xv. 5.) Why is prayer made an 
exception to this declaration? In the very same 
sense in which men cannot repent, they cannot 
pray ; the hindrances to both are precisely of the 


same character, and,of equally certain operation ; — 


nor can it be less derogatory to the Holy Spirit te 


imagine that men can pray without his aid, than © 


that without it they can repent. In affirming that 


men can pray, our brethren are guilty of the same ~ 


violations of scripture, the same inconsistencies, 


and other evils, charged upon us in saying that-men ~ 


can repent; they cannot therefore reasonably accuse 
us, nor do we attempt to criminate them. We be- 
lieve the doctrine of man’s entire ability for his duty 


to harmonize with the whole of scripture: and | 


they, who admit it in one point without answering 
the end-they desire, may just as easily, and much 
more satisfactorily, admit it in all. 

_ It has sometimes been said in reference to the 


commands of God, that gnan i8 not called to obey 


them in lus own strength; and hence it is inferred, 
that the utterance of commands does not necessa- 
rily imply the existence of power to fulfil them. 


This singular representation appears to be foun- — 


ded upon the fact, that the blessed God, having” 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 169 - 


foreseen and foretold the melancholy and certain 
influence of our evil disposition, has encouraged us 
to pray for the influence of the Holy Spirit, in or- 
der to quicken and lead us in our duty. This is a 
most gracious and important part of the divine ad- 
ministration of mercy, and one which we should be 
extremely sorry to overlook or to obscure; yet we 
conceive that it affords no ground for the objection 
derived from it. 

In, the first place, it is obvious that the commands 
of God are addressed to man as he ts, and not to 
man as he is not. If otherwise, then they are not 
addressed to man at all, but to a being in some state 
in which he is not; nor can they ever have any 
bearing upon him, but on the supposition of his 
coming some time into the state of superadded 
strength which they contemplate. It seems evi- 
dent, however, that no such qualification as this is 
attached to any of God’s commandments. They 
are uniformly addressed to man as he is, without 
the slightest intimation that obedience is not requir- 
ed until he obtains additional power to obey; on 
the contrary, from the moment they are understood 
their obligation begins, while every act of disobe- 
dience is reckoned a sin, and will meet its reward. 
If man is not called to obey in his own’ strength, | 
he should not be required to obey while he has no 
strength but his own: the additional strength which 
obedience requires should be issued simultaneously 
with the command. But neither is this the case ; 
since it is manifest that the commands of God are 


170 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


laid upon men for a long period before the Holy 
Spirit, which is supposed to convey the additional 
strength, is communicated. Besides, if God does 
not call men to obey in their own strength, then 
the strength which he does require them to use 
should be communicated by him wnsought, and not 
only promised in answer to prayer : and in cases in 
which that strength is never given, it follows that 
he never calls for obedience at all. The only thing 
which, upon this principle, he can be said tg re- 
quire, is prayer, and prayer for strength: which is 
never enjoined, though many other things are which 
this imagination supersedes ; and which, moreover, 
is quite as much beyond our own strength as any 
other spiritual exercise, and therefore ought as lit- 
tle to be required, until the additional strength is 
given which we are thus expected to seek. It may 
be added that the objection quite overlooks the fact, 
aa which we have elsewhere noticed, that God actu- 
ally makes our own strength the measure of his de- 
mands; for thus it stands in the grand expression 
of his law, and the same qualification doubtless at- 
taches to every individual precept of it, “ Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength.” 
“And ifthe whole that he requires be that to which 
our own strength is competent, why should he wait 
for obedience till we acquire more strength than 
our own ? 
In the next place, we do not see how the conde- 
scending kindness of God in encouraging us to pray 
for his Holy Spirit at all countenances the idea that 


HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 171 


he does not call us to obey in our own strength.— 
For, in truth, the operation of the blessed Spirit 
has no relation to our strength, but solely to our 
dispositions Our strength to do the will of God 
consists in the possession of our rational faculties, 
which we have, if we are sane, independently of 
gracious influence ; that which hinders us isa wrong 
disposition, and for the correction of this the Spi- 
rit’s aidis to be implored. His object is not to im- 
. part strength, but to inspire resolution ; so that 
even if it were true, which it is not, that God does 
not require us to obey without the Spirit, still it 
could not be said that he calls for.no obedience in 
-our own strength. Even when he gives the Spirit, 
he gives no more strength; and if, therefore, we 
are ever called upon to obey his will, in our own 
strength, and in that alone, it must be. Besides, 
when we come to pray for the help of the Spirit in 
order that we may obey our Maker’s commands, 
what does this very act and attitude imply ? Sure- 
ly, that obedience to these commands is our duty, 
whether we obtain the aid that we seek or not. If | 
it be not our duty, why should we seek help to per- 
form it ? Our doing so seems clearly to*indicate 
that we have felt ourselves called upon to render 
obedience before we came to the throne of grace, 
and that, finding impediments, we are come for re- 
lief: bat, if it be true that we are not called upon 
to obey while we have only our own strength, then 
we have been’ labouring under a delusion, and 
ought rather to return from the mercy-seat with this 


eS 
ve 
¥n iy 


172 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE LIMITED 


consolation, that, until strength is given, we are not — 


expected toobey. The truth is, that, by encourage- 
ments to pray for the Spirit, God is making no al- 
lowance for supposed weakness, but showing him- 
self willing not to abandon us to our wickedness, 
He requires obedience of us as we are ; and if we 
find resistance from a desperate heart, he permits 
us to hope that he will take even that away. 


CHAP. VIII. 


Of the divine use of means independently of the Ho- 
ly Spirtt:—The argument from the limited com- 
munication of the Spirit. 

‘We have already adverted to the fact, that what 
is, on one hand, ascribed to the operation of the Ho- 
ly Spirit, is, on the other, enjoined upon manas his 
duty; ahd hence we have inferred the power of 
man to perform it. But we may go further than 
this. God has not only issued commands; he has 
also used a variety of means to induce us to comply 
with them. Of this character are all the invitations 
and promises, the warnings and threatenings, the 
doctrines and examples, contained in holy seripture ; 
all of them addressed to the understanding, and in 


e ; 

COMMUNICATION OF THE SPIRIT. 173 
some way or other appealing to the heart, and con- 
stituting together an immense apparatus of motive 
‘and persuasion. Many of these portions of holy 
writ are unquestionably directed specifically to un- 
godly men, and, by shewing the necessity, reasona- 
bleness, importance, and blessedness of conversion, 
adapted to lead men to repentance. Such passages 
are also, obviously, of no limited application, but are 
addressed to sinners generally, and therefore to sin- 
“ners universally ; so that, wherever the knowledge 
of the gospel comes, a system of persuasive means 
is immediately’ put into operation upon every per- 
son of sane mind. 

This system of means plainly does not aun or 
comprehend, as in iis own nature, any communica- 
tion of the Holy Spirit to the parties on whom it 
bears. Some, indeed, have conceived that there is 
a dispensation of the Spirit co-extensive with the 
means of religious knowledge, a measure of his 
blessed influence being given to every man, tomake 
‘the best use of it for his own welfare; a sentiment 
into which we need not at present enter more fully 
than to say, that we see in it neither dgetrinal truth, 
nor practical value. On the contrary, we apprehend 
that, as, on the one hand, the scriptures declare the 
influence of the Spirit to be productive of the fruits 
of the Spirit ; so, on the other, the measure in which 
such fruits are actually produced clearly and indu- 
bitably describes the extent to which his influences 
have been received. If this be the case, and we 
shall assume it for the present without further ar- 


-, 


174 LIMITED COMMUNICATION 


gument, the communication of the Spirit is not uni- 
versal, even where gospel privileges are enjoyed; — 
since it is manifest that not all who enjoy them are — 

converted to God. Insuch circumstances, however, 
the use of means is still universal, the truths of 
God’s word, which are adapted to lead to repentance, 
bearing upon every manalike. Hence, therefore, it 
appears, that the communication of the Spirit and 
the use of means are not co-extensive; and that 
while there is one portion of mankind who enjoy 
both these favours, there is another who possess on- 
ly one of them, namely, the means of persuasion, 
being left without the influences of the Holy Ghost. 

Let us dwell for a moment upon this state of 
things, remembering that it is no accident, no mis- 
take; that it is not found where diverse agencies 
might have given rise to unexpected incongruities ; 
but that it exists in the administration of God him- 
self, and therefore is stamped with the previous 
knowledge, deliberate design, and perfect wisdom 
which characterize all his works. 

To what circumstances, then, is the use of means 
adapted or appropriate? Clearly, to none but those 
in which there is an apparent possibility of their suc- 
cess. Insickness, for example, it is a general max- 
im, that while there is life there is hope; and phy- 
sicians accordingly continue their exertions, with 
however little expectation of a cure, till life expires; 
but was any one ever so absurd as to perpetuate the 
use of means after it was ascertained that life was, 
extinct? So accurately is the principle acted upon 


OF THE SPIRIT. shid,D 


x = 


as to establish some remarkable exceptions to the 
general rule; inasmuch as ia cases of pulmonary 
consumption, for instance, it is now known that - 
after a certain point of its progress, recovery is 
hopeless, and at that poiat the application of all 
medicines is suspended, excepting such as may 
mitigate sufferings which death only can terminate, 
To every case of the employment of means the 
same principle extends; and if there be any readers 
of this book who would not feel themselves guilty 
of absurdity in making efforts for an object when 
“they knew there was no possibility of success, they, 
. but they alone, may feny, the conclusion to which 
we are tending. 

If a possibility of success be necessary to the ap- 
propriate use of means in the abstraet, it must be so, 
whether those means be employed by human.agents 
or divine: the objects contemplated may differ, and 
the means devised; but the principle of the practi- 
cability of the end by the means devised, is alike es- 
sential to the wisdom of both.” But if this be the 
case, then it inevitably follows, that it is possible 
for sinners to be converted by the means instituted 
for this end, namely, by means of persuasion, with- 
out the influence of the Holy Spirit; otherwise God 
would have resoried to the use of means without 
propriety or wisdom, which is not to be gupposed. 

Should any reader here be startled by recollecting 
how expressly our Lord declares this to be impossi- 
ble, the author begs to refer to a following chapter, 
in which the meaning of that and its kindred terms 


foo a LIMITED COMMUNICATION 


will be fully, and he hopes candidly investigated , 

At present, let the train of reasoning which is be- 
- fore us be frankly pursued, and if the idea is to be 
retained, that the Almighty is attempling to accom- 
plish by the use of persuasion what it is impossible so 
to achieve, let us fairly observe the attitude in which 
_ weplace him. We set his administration in this re- 
spect on a level with absurd and irrational actions. — 
It is like the conduct of a man who should exhaust 
his wealth upon speculations from which he knew 


he could derive no return,—a wasteful expenditure 
of his resources. It is like the effort of a man at- — 


tempting to lift a mountain in his hand,—a ridicu- 
lous application of his strength. It is like reason- 
ing with the wind, or expostulating with a stone. 
Can any one think this of his Maker ? 

~The difficulty of entertaining such ideas has led 
some to imagine, that God never intended the means 
he has employed to answer the end for which they are 
apparently designed; an opinion which has been 
strengthened by the observation, that none of God’s 
desigts can fail of their accomplishment. Of this 
argument we shall speak presently; let us first ob- 
serve the extraordinary predicament into which it 
brings the adorable being on whose behalf it is pro- 
duced. | 

We are to conceive, then, that the blessed God 
uses means adapted to an end, without any design 
to accomplish that end. Now it may be observed, 
in the first place, that his immediately stultifies our 
ordinary mode of reasoning. When we see a per- 


OF THE SPIRIT. 177 


son adopting means conducive to an end, we uni- 


formly and inevitably conclude that he designs to 


accomplish that end, or at least to do something to- 
wards it: thus when a man excavates the ground, 
and collects bricks or other materials, can any body 
help concluding that he intends to build? We have 
no Such certain method of judging of the intention 
of others as by the tendency and adaptation of their 
actions; and if it be of any importance at all to as- 
certain the designs of God, as in some respects we 


“suppose it is, we can scarcely avoid estimating them 


by the same rule. Or, secondly, If the designs of 
God, may not be inferred from the adaptation of his 
actions, it attaches a melancholy stigma to his cha- 
racter. A man who makes preparations as though 
he meant to do one thing, and all the while means 
to do another, either does not know his own mind, 
or he proceeds in a way of concealment and deceit; 
he is either a fool or a knave. If, as-we most deep- 
ly feel, such imputations must be infinitely remote 
from the Most High, must not such conduct also ? 
It is certain, at all events, that, in instituting means 
for the conversion of sinners, he seems to have this 
design ; it is certain, too, that, as he has constituted 
us to infer design from the apparent tendency of 
actions, he knows we shall conceive him to have 
this design ; and if it shall ultimately turn out that 
he had no such design, what can possibly result 
from the institution of these means, but delusion to 
us, and mockery to himself? 

Besides, look at the nature and extent of the means 


178 LIMITED COMMUNICATION 


themselves. How solemnly and awfully he speaks! 
With what a vehemence of affection and importu- 
nity he pleads! HWrom what a compass the topics 
are adduced which are employed to persuade, and 


: 


how much do they comprebend of the most attrac- © 
tive and the most terrible that can appeal to the 
heart of man! Think of the patience, the perfeve- 


rance, the solicitude, with which all these means 
are employed, while God himself looks on, with ur- 
gent yet suspended wrath, saying, “ How shall I 


make thee as Admah, and set thee as Zeboim!” — 


Could he have done more if he really had intended to 
persuade ? 


Nor should we forget that criminality is attached — 


to the failure of the means @mployed. If the Almighty 


had not intended them as means of conversion, one | 
would think he could find little cause of complaint — 


in the fact that none were converted by them: why 


is he angry at this, if he never meant they should be | 
so? He is angry, nevertheless, with the wicked © 


every day, and, “if'ye turn not, he will whet his 
sword.” Ps. vii. 12. When “the Lord Jesus shall 
be revealed frem. heaven in flaming fire,” it will be 


to “take vengeance on them that obey not the gos- | 


pel.” 2 Thess. 1.8. But why, if the gospel was 
not meant to be obeyed? The displeasure of God 
surely can have no foundation but the contradiction 


of his will, and no measure but the degree in which | 


sinners have been guilty of it. Whatever justice or 
reasonableness there is admitted to be, therefore, in 
the punishment of the impenitent, there is just as 


— Se 


_ 


OF THE SPIRIT. 179 


much proof of the intention of God that ses should 
repent at his call. 

But none of the designs of God, it is said, can be 
frustrated: and so, for the thousandth time, is an 


| apparent truth convefted into a real error. 


& There are two characters or capacities in which 
God acts: inthe one he appears as a sovereign agent, 
accomplishing ali his pleasure; in the other as a mo- 


_ ral governor, submitting himself, within certain lim- 
_ its, to the pleasure of others. The latter idea is ne- 


cessarily involved in the creation of rational beings, 


who may or may not, honour their Maker by obey- 
-ing his commands, or accomplishing his will.— 
\ There is manifestly, therefore, a wide difference 
- between the legislative will of God, and his absolute 
‘will; between his design respecting what others 


should do, and his design respecting what he will 
do himself. The accomplishment of the latter is 


absolutely certain, the former is liable to frustration. 


And this state of things involves no dishenour to 


God; because, whatever the conduct of his creatures 
may be, however they may choose,to disobey and 
-dishonour him, there are ultimate measures of 


wrath, by taking which his name and glory will be 
fully vindicated. 

Seeing therefore that there is a most just and im- 
portant sense in which it may be affirmed that God’s 
will may be resisted and his designs frustrated, 
namely, in reference to the whole of his legislative 
administration, it may correctly be maintained to be 


his will that men should repent at his call, even 


180 LIMITED COMMUNICATION 


: 
though none of them do so. No other part of his . 
will is frustrated herein, than such as the very .na- . 
ture of his government renders liable to this result. : 

It may perhaps be conceived that the fact that © 
none are converted without the influence of the Spi- 
rit, a fact which the author most fully and unequi , 
vocally maintains, authorizes the inference that the 
means were not intended for their apparent end. 
Would the Almighty, it may be said, institute a 
magnificent apparatus as means of conversion, by 
which he foreknew that none would be converted dy 

This question involves a principle which applies — 
to all instances of probationary administration. 
Can tt be wise and worthy of God ta make an experi- 
ment which he knows avill fail? Let his own con- 
duct answer. The experiment made with our first’ 
parents in the garden of Eden was just such an one; 
yet he did make it, and he may therefore make 
another on asimilar principle. Or let the nature of 
the case answer. May there not be other results, 
for the production of which the experiment may be ~ 
worth while, although that particular result should 
not arise? He must haye great confidence in his 
own judgment who would undertake to answer this — 
question in the negative; and until it is so Answer- 
ed, and upon sufficient authority, the way is quite 
open for conceiving that God may have instituted 
means of conversion, and intended them as such, 
although no sinner should be converted by them. 

We might ask, indeed, Jf the invitations and war- 
nings of holy writ were not intended as means of con- 


OF THE SPIRIT. 181 


version, for what were they intended? The impor- 
tance of answering this question has been felt by 
those who hold the opinion we are combating, but 
it seems to have been found somewhat difficult to 
answer it satisfactorily. It is, We are told, to leave 
sinners without excuse. Strange assertion! It is 
then to be supposed that, if it were not for the warn- 
ings and invitations of the gospel, sinners would have 
an excuse for their sins! This is a startling pro- 
position to set out with, verily ; but it is nothing to 
what follows, namely, that the gospel is given to 
take this excuse away, and for no other end! If 
this be the case, it must be confessed that the gos- 
pel has been grievously misunderstood. It has been 
imagined to have an aspect of favour, to come with 
a message of mercy, to be glad tidings of great joy, 
the grace of God bringing salvation: but 
to this notion, it brings nothing but guilt, misery, 
and wrath. Before it comes, men have a valid ex- 
cuse for their sins, one which makes it impossible 
for God to punish them justly, and which will cer- 
tainly exempt them, therefore, from any punishment 
at all: but, after the gospel comes, this excuse is taken 
away; then they begin to be chargeable with guilt, 
and liable to misery, and the publication of the gos- 
pel itselfis a mere contrivance of his, that he might be 
able to condemn justly wretches whom he was otherwise 
determined io destroy! 
Scarcely less extraordinary is the method by which 
the sinner’s excuse is to be taken away. If indeed, 


he being already guilty and exposed to ruin, a door 
M 


, according 


182 LIMITED COMMUNICATION 


of hope is really set before him, then he will have no 
excuse if he should ultimately perish ; and this is 
exactly the state of things for which we contend. 

But nothing of this sort is admitted by our com- 
panions in argument. They will have the sinner’s 
excuse taken away without sal vation having been put 
into his power; as though the semblance of it were 
enough to insure this melancholy end, and the 
whole affair was characterized by a systematic hy- 
pocrisy, which it is astonishing that any man could 
devise, and yet more astonishing that he could at- 
tribute to his Maker. 

The truth which we have thus been endeavouring 
to establish, is that the warnings and invitations of 
the gospel are used by the Almighty as sincere means 
of conversion. If this be admitted, we conceive it 
to follow that those whom means are_used to lead to 
repentance have power to repent, the use of means 
being otherwise absurd. 

To what has been said we may add, that the 
means employed possess a perfect and manifest adap- 
tation to the faculties of man in their natural state, 
irrespectively of the influence of the Holy Spirit. We 
have seen that man’s heart is wrought upon by 


means of the understanding, according to the ten-— 


dency of the objects presented to it; and we find 
that the means instituted by God for the conversion 
of sinners are in perfect accordance with this con- 
stitution, and require nothing more to give them ef- 
ficiency. He presents truths to the understanding, 
adapted and sufficient to induce repentance, and 


—L—— 


OF THE SPIRIT. 183 


according to the structure of the mind, the conside- 
ration of those truths would infallibly lead to the 
result they are adapted to produce. The apparatus, 
therefore, is framed without a regard to the influence 
of the Holy Spirit; as a system of means, it is per- 
fect and complete without this appendage, and is 
sure of success by itself, unless some cause prevents 
the natural and ordinary action of the mind. 

The opinion, to which we briefly referred at the 
commencement of this chapter, that a measure of 
the Spirit’s influence is given to every man who 
comes within the knowledge of the gospel, has 
arisen from a conviction of the necessity of admit- 
ting power in man, as well as the use of means by 
God ; but, as man is conceived by this school of di- 
vines to have no power of himself, it must be given 
to him, and-hence the hypothesis of the universal dis- 
pensation of the Spirit. With regard to thisscheme 
of doctrine, we might well be content with the tes- 
timony which it bears to the general principle we 
have advocated; but we may observe in passing, 
that, if the constitution of our intelligent and moral 
nature be such as has been described, the supposi- 
tion of the universal influence of the Spirit is alto- 
gether needless. It is only conceived to put a man 
into such a condition of strength, that, as to religion, 
~ he may do what he pleases; but in the very same con- 
dition we have shown man to be without supernatu- 
ral aid. To what end, therefore, is the introduc- 
tion of an agent in this respect unnecessary ? 


184 SOVEREIGN CHARACTER OF 


CHAP. IX. 


Whether the Holy Spirit is a gift of justice, or of 
grace:—The argument from the gracious and 
sovereign character of the Holy Spirit. 


Havine contemplated the condition of those to 
whom God does not impart the influences of his 
Spirit, let us briefly survey that of the more favour- 
ed portion of mankind, on whom this inestimable 
blessing is bestowed. Judging by the fruits, there 
are manifestly some into whose hearts this divine 
agent is commissioned to enter: in what light are 
we led to regard this gift, by the oracles of truth ? 
If the communication of the Spirit is necessary to tin- 
part power to men to perform their duty, then we 
may expect to find it spoken of as a matter of equita- 
ble administration, as a thing due to men, inasmuch 
as there can be no equitable responsibility without 
commensurate power: but if, on the other hand, we 
should find it described as altogether a matter of grace 
and favour, and one respecting which God acts ac- — 
cording to his sovereign pleasure, then we may not 
unreasonably conclude that et is not necessary to the 
just responsibility, or to the power of man. An ex- 
amination of the holy scriptures will readily decide 
this question. 


The gift of the Holy Spirit, we apprehend, is in- 


THE HOLY SPIRIT. 185 


variably spoken of as an act of grace, of rich and 
boundless grace. | 

1. This may be inferred from the passages which 
represent mankind in their natural state, and inde- 
pendently of any communication of the Spirit, as in 
a state of entire unworthiness and just condemna- 
tion ; Rom. i. 18, et seg. ii. passim. So that any 
good thing given them must be of mercy, or free 
favour. But the Holy Spirit is not only a good 
thing, but one of the best things which the eternal 
Father has to bestow; wherefore it is of grace. 

2. It appears also from the fact, that the gift of 
the Spirit 1s a part of the work of redemption ; 
which is uniformly represented as originating in 
the free grace of God alone, and as characterized 
by it in all its parts. Now if the gift of the Spirit 
be a part of this dispensation, it must partake of its 
general and essential character of grace. 

3. The same conclusion may be drawn from the 
connexion which exists between the gift of the Spirit 
and the work of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is one 
of the fruits of his death, and could not otherwise 
have been bestowed. (Gal. iii.13,14.) But the 
gift of his Son is declared to be the very highest- 
expression of the Hather’s love to a guilty world, 
John iii. 16, a gift as free as wonderful; and such 
therefore must be the character of every other gift 
which comes through this channel of mercy. 

4. The discrimination and sovereignty which ap- 
pear in the dispensation of the Spirit, lead us to the 
same result. Whatever is necessary to the power of 

M2 : 


186 SOVEREIGN CHARACTER OF 


men to act a right part in their present state of be- 
ing, God has dispensed universally, with an equal, 
that is, an equitable hand; all that may be given to 
men over and above this measure of good, he consi- 
ders as forming a department subject to his wnequal 
and discretionary distribution, in relation to which, 
while he gives to every man severally as he will, 
he says to every other man, “ Friend, I do thee no 
wrong: may J not do what I will with mine own ?” 
(Matt. xx. 13.) No conclusion can be more easy or 
more safe, therefore, than this; that, respecting 
whatever gift the blessed God uses sovereignty, 
giving it to some and not to others, that gift is not 
necessary to the power of man to secure his own 
welfare. It is plain, however, that God has used 
sovereignty in the gift of his Spirit, which is im- 
parted to some and not to others ; wherefore we 
maintain that the gift of the Spirit is not necessary 
to man’s power for his duty. 

5. Love, or kindness, is declared, also, to be the 
prevailing molive and character of the Spirit himself 
in his gracious operations. Hence, the apostle speaks 
of “the love of the Spirit:” Rom. xv. 30, and the 
sacred writers generally represent the enjoyment of 
his influences as a matter of the highest thankful- 
ness and praise. 

If therefore, the communication of the Spirit is 
thus, without exception, described as arising from 
the free grace of God, through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, we conclude that it is not requisite to hu- 
man power, or just responsibility. 


ee 


— 
nae 


THE HOLY SPIRIT. 187 


. some, who maintain the reverse of this conclu- 
sion, have been led also to question the premises, 
and to assert, with more or less distinctness, that, 
as a measure of the Spirit’s influence is essential 
to enable every man to do his duty,so God is 
bound to give it to every man for this end;-that 
such a help is due to our present condition; and 
that he could not justly judge and punish us, as 
fallen creatures, without previously restoring us to 
such a state of power. This is a fair specimen of 
the weight with which this sentiment bears upon 
every portion of divine truth; a sentiment not 
more mischievous in sapping the foundation of hu- 
man responsibility, than it is injurious to the lustre 
of divine sovereignty, That the gift of the Spirit 
is in any measure due to man, is one of the last 
things which, with any regard to scripture, it would 
seem possible to maintain; nor can it be asserted 
Without implying the connected, but incredible 
idea, that God was equally bound to redeem the 
world, and to effect it by the death of his Son. 

The writer again recollects, that there have been 
supposed to be some influences of the Spirit exer- 
cising the minds of men not truly converted to 
God. These he is not called upon either to affirm 
or to deny: it is enough for him to repeat the ob- 
servation, that, as they have never been represented 
as affecting the question of a sinner’s ability to re- 
pent, they are beyond the scope of the present ar- 
gument. 


M3 


188 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


* 


CHAP. X. 


Whether the abilitu of man is not maintained in the 
holy scriptures:—The argument from express 
words of sacred writ. 


Tue sacred scriptures are the standard and depo- 
sitory of all truth. They are not only a testimony, 
but a law; and nothing is truth which is not ac- 
cording to this rule. How deeply ashamed would 
the writer feel, if he were conscious of shrinking 
in the least degree from this test; or if he were 
fearful lest the word of God should overthrow an 
opinion of his! Infinitely removed be such a feel- 
ing! Welcome, thou light of heavenly wisdom, 
whatever shadows may disperse at thy rising ! 

+ Frequent references to the scriptures of truth 
have already been made: but it yet remains to no- 
tice some particular and important passages, which 
have not pointedly come under review. 

I. We conceive, then, that there are portions of 
holy writ in which the power of man is expressly as- 
serted. 

1. Such an one occurs, Isaiah vi. 9,10. “ Go and 
tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; 
see ye, indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart 
of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and 
shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and 


SACRED WRIT. 189 


hear with their ears, and understand with their 
heart, and convert, and be healed.” Thisisa plain 
affirmation, “ Ye do hear, but do not understand, 
ye do see, but do not perceive.” Though they did 
not ‘“‘understand and perceive,” or so consider the 
messages of the prophets as to be reformed by them, 
yet they did “‘ hear and see,” which constituted the 
means, or the power of doing so. They were nei- 
ther blind, nor deaf. 

This forcible passage, with some slight varia- 
tions, is quoted by our Lord, as recorded by all the 
evangelists, and in one case with a modification; 
which throws a decisive light on the prophetic 
phraseology, ‘‘ Make the heart of this people gross,” 
&c. In John xi. 40, it is thus quoted: “He hath 
blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, that 
they should not see with their eyes, nor understand 
with their heart, and be converted, and I should 
heal them.” In Luke viii. 10. “ That seeing they 
might not see, and hearing they might not under- 
stand.” In Mark iv. 12. “That seeing they may 
see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear 
and not understand, lest at any time they should be 
converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” 
In Matt. xiil. 14, 15, more fully: “By hearing ye 
shall hear, and not a carer: and seeing ye shall 
see, and not perceive, for this people’s heart is 
waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, 
and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time 
they should see with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and should understand with their hearts, 


SS al 


190 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


and should be converted, and I should heal them.” 
What we wish now to be observed in this passage 
is the direct testimony borne to the actual capacity 
of men to perceive and understand and obey the truth, 
aithough they do not. They see and hear, and they 
have hearts to feel: while, through cherished and de- 
termined inattention, the things declared to them are 
as though they neither saw nor heard them. The 
mixture of literal with figurative expressions, and 
the occurrence of the strict and analogical use of 
.the same term in immediate conjunction, is here 
very remarkable, and should carefully be observed. 
2. A passage of similar bearing may be found, 
John ix. 39, 41. “And Jesus said, For judgment 
am I come into this world, that they which see not 
might see, and that they which see might be made 
blind. And some of the Pharisees which were 
with him heard these words, and said unto him, 
Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye 
were blind yeshould have no sin: but now, ye say, 
We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” In this 
passage, there isa mixed reference to the sight of 
the body and the state of the mind, arising from 
the circumstance that our Lord had just spoken to the 
blind man whom he had restored to sight, and had 
taken occasion from his cure to reprove the spiritual 
blindness of the Jews. ‘For judgment,” says he, 
or for discrimination, “‘am I come into this world; 
that they which see not might see, (referring to the 
qan then present, who had been restored to sight,) 
and that they which see might be made blind,” or 


ex 
he 


SACRED WBIT. OT 


might have evidence of their blindness, for which 
the light of my works affords a more extraordinary 
occasion ; referring to the perverseness with which 
the Jews had rejected the proofs of his Messiahship, 
derived from that miraculous cure. These persons 
are distinctly described as “those who see;” but 
somewhat piqued at the seeming association of 
blindness with their names, the Pharisees who 
stood there asked nim, ‘‘ Are we blind also?” Some 
persons would have immediately replied, Yes, cer- 
tainly ; and had this been really the case, our Lord 
could not properly have avoided it, nor can we be- 
lieve that he would have attempted it. But mark 
his answer: ‘If ye were blind, ye should have no 
sin;” if you had not the power of appreciating the 
evidence of my true character afforded by this mi- 
racle, there would be nothing blameworthy in your 
- not being convinced by it: “but now ye say, We 
see; therefore your sin remaineth.” ‘To evade the 
force of this latter clause, it has been said, that our 
Lord is not there asserting that they did see, but 
only taking them at their own word, which might 
be false, and probably was so. But when we con- 
sider that the circumstances were such as brought 
the truth of the statement into immediate question, 
it will be evident that, if it was not true, it was by 
all means incumbent on their divine instructor to 
show its falsehood; otherwise he would have been 
allowing them to think it true, and thus, if it were 
not so, attaching his sanction to a ruinous error. 
- Besides, he has just before plainly described them 
mu 3 


192 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


in similar terms, as “‘ those who see ;” so that he does 
not merely take them at their word, but at his own. 
And, lastly, the nature and importance of the argu- 
ment built upon it prec!udes the possibility of con- 
sidering itas anerror. The fact of their seeing is 
made the premises for the conclusion that they were 
criminal. Their saying, We see, if it were a mis- 
take, could not authorize this conclusion; but, on 
the contrary, would lead to the inference that their 
rejection of the Messiah had no guilt in it—one of 
the last lessons we can conceive to have been in- 
culcated by our Lord. ‘The entire argument, there- 
fore, is this: “If ye were blind ye should have no 
sin;” if you had not power to appreciate the evi- 
dence of my true character, you would incur no 
blame by rejecting me; “ but now, as ye truly say, 
ye see;” you have all the means necessary to appre- 
hend my glory; “therefore your sin remaineth.” 
No words can more clearly assert that these wicked 
Pharisees were not blind, though they acted as if 
they were. T'hey possessed ample means, that is to 
say, full power, of acting otherwise; and if they had 
not, they would have had no sin. 

We are very well aware that, upon another occa- 
sion, our Lord represented these same persons as 
blind. (Matt. xxiii. 16, 18.) We suppose it will be 
maintained, however, on both sides, that this divine 
instructor was not guilty of contradicting himself; 
and if not, we must understand him to say that the 
Pharisees were blind only in such a sense as was 
consistent with their seeing; that is to say, that, 


SACRED WRIT. 193 


possessing the power of sight, they did not use it, 
but acted as though they were blind, and so re- 
mained in ignorance and sin. But of this and 
similar expressions we shall speak more fully pre- 
sently. 

3. The same truth is expressly asserted by our 
Lord, Matt. xiii. 12; ‘‘ Because seeing they see not, 
and hearing they hear not, neither do they under- 
stand :” language which fully establishes the power 
of men to perform all the actions for which sight 
and hearing were given, while it touchingly com- 
plains of the guilty inattention by which instruction 
was rendered fruitless. * 

4, We mention a large portion of scripture car- 
rying the same idea with it, when we refer to the 
parables of our Lord. Every one has been struck, 
not merely with their general verisimilitude and 
beauty, but with their minute and comprehensive 
accuracy. It may reasonably be expected, there- 
fore, that in them no important feature in the cha- 
racter or condition of man will be omitted; or that, 
if not illustrated in one parable, it will be found in 
another. Least of all can it be supposed that a mat- 
ter of such particular prominence and such vital 
importance as the ability or inability of man has 
been overlooked. Nor shall we find that it has 
been so. 

If the power appropriate to man as a moral agent 
be wanting, the objects introduced emblematically 
to exhibit his conduct, either as to what it is, or 
what it ought to be, should be equally destitute of 


194 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


‘the power appropropriate to them; otherwise the 
analogy necessary to the very structure of the para- 
ble does not exist, and nothing can result from it 
but confusion and error. So when man as a moral 
agent is compared to a tree, if the former be devoid 
of moral power, the latter should be destitute of ve- 
getable power; or if a man’s conduct towards God 
is illustrated by the conduct of a son towards his 
father, if the former have no power over his con- 
duct towards God, the latter should have no power 
over his conduct towards his parent. 

Let the reader recollect himself but a moment, 
and he will be convinced that none of the parables 
are formed upon this principle. They uniformly in- 
troduce, for the illustration of our moral action, ob- 
jects oP agents in possession of the entire power be- 
longing to theirnature. If an impenitent sinner be 
compared to a fig-tree, it is to a living and not a 
dead one. (Luke xviii. 6.) If the condition of man 
is shadowed forth by that of servants who received 
talents to employ for their Lord, they receive every 
man “ according to his several ability.” (Matt. xxv. 
15.) If the address of the gospel is likened to the 
invitation to a feast, the parties to whom it is ad- 
dressed have full power of accepting it. (Luke xiv. 
16, et seg.) We might goin the same manner 
through the whole of the parables, and not find a 
single instance in which a different idea is insinu- 
ated. 

This is a remarkable fact, and bears directly 
upon our argument. ‘These parables, in which 


a 


Sy ee 


SACRED WRIT. eas 195 


man, in relation to his moral conduct, is compared 
to objects possessing the whole power which natu- 
rally pertains to them, clearly intimate that man is 
in possession of all the power requisite to moral ac- 
tion. If this is not the case, the parables are found- 
ed ona mistaken analogy, and must lead to errone- 
ous conclusions. 7 

If man were really destitute of power, he not on- 
ly might, but must be compared to objects devoid of 
their proper strength, as to a dead tree, a dead man, 
the diseased, or the blind; but it is very remarkable, 
that, whzle epithets of this kind are freely applied to 
man himself not a single object of this class is used 
for the purpose of parabolical illustration. The 
reason is, that these expressions, when applied to 
mankind, become metaphors, and though highly 
significant and important, are used out of their strict 
aud literal meaning. Parables, however, are not 
metaphors, nor a species of composition in which 
terms can be properly used in a metaphorical sense. 
When the state of a tree is used to illustrate the 
condition of a man, it may be described in any 
terms literally and strictly applicable, but in no 
other; and hence the fact, that such terms as dlind, 
dead, &c. never enter into our Lord’s parables, is a 
decisive proof that there are really no such things 
as blindness and death in the condition of man- 
kind. 

5. In this place we may introduce, also, the pas- 
sage in which the apostle asserts the intrinsic and 
independent sufficiency of the divine word: “ From 


are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through 
faith which is.in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. iii. 15.) 
We scarcely need stay to prove that the apostle 
here assigns to the scriptures a sufficiency to make 
men wise to salvation apart from the influence of the 
Holy Spirit. No reference to the Spirit is contain- 
ed in the passage or its connexion, nor is there any 
eround of necessity for introducing it. We observe 
more particularly, that the sufficiency of the scrip- 
tures to impart saving wisdom is not to be viewed 
in the abstract, but in connexion with the persons 
to whom they are given; they are able to make us 
wise unto salvation. Now this, it is manifest, im- 
plies something respecting our condition, as well 
as the excellency of the scripture itself. It is not 
able to make an idiot, or an infant, or a dead man, 
wise unto salvation. It can have this effect upon 
none but such as are capable of understanding, ap- 
preciating, and obeying it; whence it evidently fol- 
lows, that we, whom it is able to make wise unto 
salvation, are able to understand it, to appreciate, 
and to obey. 

6. Another class of passages concurring to prove 
the sentiment under review, may be found in those 
which require and enforce consideration, not merely 
as a duty, but as dhe method of obedience to the divine 
will. These which follow are such: “ O that they 
were wise, that they understood this, that they 
would consider their latter end!” (Deut. xxxii. 29.) 
* Consider how great things God hath done for you.” 


SACRED WRIT. 197 


(1Sam. xii.24.) “Thus saith the Lord, Consider 
your ways.” (Hag. i. 5, 7.) Of the same tenor are 
the texts in which the Lord requires men to hearken, 
a word expressive simply of attention, or considera- 
tion: “Take heed and hearken, O Israel.” (Deut. 
xxvii. 9.) “ Hearken to me, ye stout-hearted, that 
are far from righteousness. Hearken diligently un- 
‘ta me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your 
soul delight in fatness. Incline your ear and come 
unto me ; hear, and your soul shall live.” (Isa. xlvi. 
12. lv. 2, 3.) In some instances the word hearken is 
used to denote the very obedience to which it leads. 
‘To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken, 
than the fat of rams.” (1 Sam. xv. 22.) “ Who will 
hearken and hear for the time to come?” (Isa. lxi. 
23.) To these may be added the passages in which 
God rests the burden of his complaint for disobedi- 
ence on the want of consideration: “ But they re- 
fused to hearken, and stopped their ears.” (Zech. 
vii. 7.) “Israel doth not know, my people doth not 
consider.” (Isa. i. 3.) “ They consider not in their 
hearts.” Hosea vii. 2. “But they said, We will 
not hearken. Behold ye walk every one after the 
imagination of his evil heart, that ye may not 
hearken unto me.” (Jer. vi. 17. xvi. 12.) 

Every attentive reader of the scriptures knows 
that similar language might be quoted toa great ex- 
-tent. Let us ask, what is the import of it? Can 
it imply less than we have stated above, namely, 
that in God’s own view, consideration is the me- 
thod by which obedience ig to be induced, and an 


A Du ; ee 
198 _ THE ARGUMENT FROM 


exercise from which it would certainly follow? To 


ascribes it to the want of ‘consideration, and to no- 
thing else. Is he right in doing so? Is it conceiv- 
able that he would have done so, if it ought to be 
referred to any other cause? Are we going beyond 
the clear testimony of the divine word when we 
say, that the question of obedience or disobedience 
is exclusively a question of consideration or incon- 
sideration? But if this be the case, then it cannot. 
be maintained that we have not power to obey, un- 
less it can be said also that we have not power to 
consider, which obviously cannot be said of any 
man who retains his intelligent faculties. So long 
as we have power to consider, according to God’s 
own word, we have power to obey. 

We may be allowed here to pause a moment, for 
the sake of pointing out to such of our readers as 
have made themselves acquainted with the princi- 
ples of moral science, as laid down in our first chap- 
ter, their perfect accordance with the language of 
sacred writ. We have stated that our entire power 
of self-regulation lies in the faculty of attention, or 
consideration ; and that this faculty gives an effec- 
tive power of self-control, so far as motives are suf- 
ficient for the purpose. The scriptures address us 
precisely in the manner which we should anticipate 
upon this supposition. They call upon us to obey 
commands, and to consider, that we may obey ; if 
we do not obey, they tell us that it is because we 


a 


SACRED WRIT. ‘199 


have not considered; both these addresses proceed- 

ing plainly upon the principle, that, if we had con- 
sidered, we should have obeyed. The scriptures, it 
is true, were not intended to teach us moral philos- 
ophy ; but there is nevertheless a system of moral. 
philosophy on which the scriptures proceed, and 
when we find one witli which they manifestly har- 
monize, we -may satisfactorily assure ourselves of 
its truth, 


Lal 
CHAP. XI, ** 


The argument from express words of scripture cons 
. tinued. 


3G Beis che passages which refer thizeacly to 
the power possessed by man, those bear as decisively 
upon the argument, which abate the nature of the 
cause preventing the performance of right action. 
Two things being necessary to the performance 
of any action, namely power to perform it and a dis- 
‘position to perform it, one of. two causes like wise, 
or either of them, may operate to its prevention: 
namely a want of disposition, or a want of power. — 
Do the scriptures say any thing respecting the cause 
which hinders men from repenting? andi they do, — 
to which of ‘those above-mentioned do they ascribe this 
N 


200 THE ARGUMENT FROM ef 
. impediment? The information they contain on this 
subject may be expected t6 be full and satisfactory. * 

1. It will now probably océur immediately to every 
reader, how often we are expressly taught that men 
cannot repent. “Such is the language of our Lord: 
“No man can come unto me, except the Father 
which hath sent me draw him. Without me ye 
can do-nothing. With men this is. ¢mposstble.” | 
John vi. 44; xv..5; Matt. xix. 26. © Similar expres- 
sions are of frequent occurrence in thegacred writ- 
ings. This phraseology’ has been conceived, to 
prove, beyond the ‘possibility of doubt, that men 
have no power to turn to God. Js tt not, it is de- 
manded, expressly asserted? and can @ doctrine so 
clearly stated ever be imPugned, without calling in 
question the authoritr ity of holy writ? - : 

Far be it from us to incur this heavy criminality’ 
or to betake ourselves to such a refuge! It must 
be a bad system ‘which shrinks from any portion of 
God’s word; and the writer hopes he should feel no 
satisfaction in any s sentiment he holds, if there were 
a single expr ession in the oracles of God to which 
he could not attach a fair, full, and consistent mean- 

ing. In this case he has simply to observe, that he 
conceives the import of the terms in Meader. to have 
been mistaken. 

In order to show this, we may, begin by observing 
that the word cannot is by no means uniformly used 
to denote the want of power, but is very commonly 
employed to express determination. We do this 
with great frequency in our ordinary conversation : 


~ 


SACRED WRIT. 201 


as when we say, I cannot come, or, I cannot. agree 
to it; in which cases all that we meansto convey is 
our determination not to do these things. Now, if 
it be a fact that the term cannot is not uniformly 
,used to denote power, but sometimes determination, 
then the argument drawn from its use is clearly in- 
conclusive; and it requires to be ascértained in 
what cases it refers to te one, and in what cases to 
the other. mm ve . 

This inquiry ‘it will be much better to conduct on. 
general principles, than with reference to particular 
passages of-scripture. Letus first ascertain therule . 
-by which the import of the term is regulated, and 
then impartially apply it ta whatever cases may 
arise. ‘his rule we conceive “to be as follows :— 
The term cannot denotes deter mination, and not pow- 
er, when and whenever it is applied to acts, whether 
internal ‘or eaternal, the. ‘performance of which de- 
pends upon the state of the mind. 

It is scarcély needful to observe, that many rs our 
actions do depend upon ‘the state of the mind, and 
upon nothing else. Whether, in a state of health 
and freedom, I rise or sit, | walk or remain in the. 
house, I read or write, and innumerable things be- 
sides, depend solely on the state of my mind; that — 
is to say, according to the state of my mind I may, 
and shall, either do them or let them alone. Now 
if, in any of these cases I were to use the word can- 
not, as in saying, I cannot walk now, or I cannot — 
come yet, the word cannot. in this case would sim- 
ply express my determination that I would not. 


1° 


202 | THE ARGUMENT FROM 


The reason why it must be understood in this sense 
is, that I am plainly in full possession of power to 
do the very things I have said I cannot do; nothing 
but my determination not.to do them prevents me 5 
and therefore the word cannot, in this ease, must be 
taken to denote determination and nel power. = * 
To show how purely this term is applied to the 
purpose of expressing determination merely, with- 
out the slightest association with the idea of power,. 
we may give the following example. Conceive a 
plan to be submitted to you for your consideration 
and concurrence. It appears to you unadvisable, 
and you say, I am not willing to embark in such-a 
business. Suppose it is pressed upon-:you more 
strongly ; you still disapprove it, and reply,.Do not 
urge it, for I never can agree to it— Why have you 
made this change of expression ? ,Had any fit of 
inability come over you just at that-monfent, that 
you said, J cannot? * Or did you not mean td express 
prétisely the same thing by cannot in your second | 
answer, as by not being willing in your first, only 
more decidedly 2. Imagine further, that, upon fuller 
_ information, your objections vanish, and you ulti- 
mately agree to the plan proposed. Is this because 
you have acquired any new power, which you had 
not five minutes before? Or is it not rather that 
your determination merely has undergone a change ? 
It is evident, therefore, that the phrases cannot and 
will not are used interchangeably, the former con- 
veying precisely, tliough more emphatically, the 
meaning of the latter. | = at? 


1 


SACRED WRIT. . 203 


It may be said, that, although in some instances 
~ where an action Basen’ on the state of the mind, 
the word cannot may denote only determination aad 
_ not power, it does not follow that this should al- 
ways be the case; sométimes perhaps it may indicate 
a want of power also. The proof of such a use of 
the word lies upon the party who adduces the possi- 
bility of it. We believe that such a case-does not 
exist, but that, upon the most extensive and accu- 
rate examination, it will be found that, whenever the 
word cannot is apalied to acts which depend upony 
the state of the mind, it denotes determination only, 
Without any comarente to power. Nor can it very 
well be otherwise. For, in the first place, it would 
be a. very confounding maiiha of speech to make 
one and the same word convey two dissimilar, and 
in some respects opposite ideas at once. It is a con- 
siderable freedom with language, to employ a. word 
for such purposes at different times and in different 
circumstances ; but to go further than this is a kind 
of legerdemain, which could not be accomplished 
without some little difficulty. In the next place, it 
is not im the nature of things that, when an act de- . 
pends upor the state of the Gainde power should be 
wanting ; for if power is wanting, then the act doés 
not depend on the state of the mind. Itis very pos- 
sible that both power and disposition to perform a 
given action may be wanting at the same time: 3 as, 
for example, that a man may have neither money" 
- nor inclination to pay his debts ; but in this case it is 
clear that the non-performance of the action does 
: N2 


a 


* 


204 ' THE ARGUMENT FROM 


not depend upon the state of his mind, because, if 
the state of his mind*were different, still he could 
not pay. y his debts, not having money i the purpose. , 


If it were said of such a man, he cannot pay his_ 


debts, nobody would understanc this of his will, but 
of his power. The reason of this is, that the strict 
and primary reference of the word cannol is to power. 
its reference to will being secondary and analogical: 
whence it follows that whenever the idea of power 
is present, the word cannot must apply to it, and not 
o will; it can apply to will, therefore, only when the 
adea of power is absent, and obviously must do so 
whenever this is the case. Whenever, therefore, an 
act depends upon the state of the mind, if the word 
cannot be used in reference to it, it refers to deter 
mination only, and not to power. 3 
Our object in these remarks is not to frame any 
artificial rule to which the use of language may be 


forcibly reduced, but to ascertain upon’what princi- | 


ples its employment is’ actually regulated among 
mankind. If the universal practice in reference to 
the word cannot be.as above stated, the rule so de- 


duced is-capable of the most strict and just applica-— 


tion to the declarations of holy writ. The language 
in which God has spoken to us is the language of 
man} it was in all respects suitable, desirable, and 
nécessary that it should be so, if it was intended for 
the instruction of mankind; nor can any good reason 


be assigned why the import ef it should not be de-"-— 


termined by the same methods as that of ordinary 
life. Upon this principle, then, we ask, what our 


—_ se 


4 


SACRED WRIT. - 205 


divine ta means aes he says, “No man can 
come untome.” 'Themeaning of it mgy be, no man 
has power to come; but since the word cannot has 
not always this meaning, it is proper to inquire in- 
to the particulars of the case. Upon what does ‘a sin 
ner’s coming to Christ depend? If it depends sripon 
the state of his mind, the word cannot in this case 
. does not denote power, bul determination only. Let 
the scriptures be consulted on this head. 

."It is remarkable that when our friends from 
whom we differ refer to sacred’ writ for informotion 
respecting the obstacle to repentance, their quota: 
tions are invariably of one kind. Jhey adduce im- 
mediately various declarations that men cannot come 
to Christ; and, if you were to listen to them only, 
-you would never imagine that*there were passages 
which exhibited the ee, Se in any other light. Yet 
there arewsuch passages, and. ‘many. of them. A 
‘sample of them follows: “Ve will not come unto 
“me that ye might have life.. How often would I 
have gathered thy children together, as a hen gath- 
ereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would 
not. Hesaid, J will not. Because | called, and ye 
refused, I str etched out my. hand, and no.man regard- 
ed. Seeing ye put away from you the word of God, 
-we turn unto the Gentiles.” (John v. 40.) (Matt. 
¥xxi. 37. xxi. 29.) (Prov. i. 21)” (Acts xiii. 46.) 
* Such quotations might be greatly multiplied. And 
int considering the intport of the divine otacles re- 
specting: -the hinderance to repentance, why should 
_ they be overlooked ¢ Have they nomeaning? On 


$ * 


206). THE ARGUMENT FROM . 


the contrary, we conceive their meaning to be clear 
and indubitable ; namely, that sinners do not repent 
because they willnot. ‘Their conduct in this respect 
depends upon the state of their minds ; there being no- 
thing*but malignity of heart, and enmity to God, to 
prevent their coming to him through his*Son. But 
if this be the case, then, according to the rule laid — 
down,.the word cannot, does not bebe to power, but 
to determination only. . 

If this conclusion. is to be set aside, it must be by 
‘showing that repentance does nol daniel upon the 
state of a sinner’s mind, that there is some other ob- 
stacle to it besides the wickedness of his heart, and 
such an obstacle as would still operate if the wicked- 
ness of his heart were destr oyed. It would afford 
us-great pleasure to see thig fairly undertaken, and * 
we Shout look yvith much interest for the result, 
For ourselves we will only.gay that,,if Phere 1 were 
any such impediment, the-burden of men’s s impeni- 
tence could_not be justly laid upongtheir unwilling- 
ness, where, nevertheless, our divine Lord Has ” 
it, aiid where doubtless it truly rests. 

In reference to the discussion in which we are 
engaged, the terms will not, é&c. have agnore deci- 
sive bearing than the term cannot, to “whieli sveater 
prominence has been given. The-.last is an analo- - 
gical expression, and requires a limited construc- 
tion; the former are literal expressions, and* “have 
only to be interpreted: in their strict and obvious 
sense: thé one tells us what the hinderanée to ree 
pentance 7s ie the others tell us what it is. ‘With | 


el 3 ; , 
"2 © * » ‘ 
‘tur a ge 
: . aad . *. 
‘ 


. 


* 


. 


SACRED WRIT. - 207 


respect to the nature of the impediment, therefore, 
these are the only passages which give us any in- 
formation at all, and, instead of being thrown into 


the hack-ground, they are the only ones which 


_ Should be consulted. 

If it be finally admitted, and we conceive it can- 
not be disproved, that the only thing which obstructs 
the return of sinners to God through Christ is the 
malignity of their hearts, then~it follows, as we 
have shown, that the word cannot, as applied tv this 
case, is meant to express no want of power, but sim- 
ply the fact of the sinner’s determination. . Should 
an objection be raised on the supposed ground of 
taking away the meaning of. words, or of introdu- 
cing confusion into the use of language, the reply 
is obvious. "We wish to understand the words of 
holy writ precisely in the same manner as we do 
“those of ordinary life, as it is quite natural, and 
eyeu- imperative that we should,,unless reason can 
be shown for the contrary. Can any such reason be 


» shown? Why do any persons insist upon our al- 


, lowirig a meaning to certain phrases im the bible, 


which neither we nor they would assign to them. 


out of the bible? The proof of such a necessity 
lies with them, and must be adduced before we can 
comply with their demand. So far from taking 
‘away. the meaning of words, we give them the pre- 
cise and full import currently attached to them: 
-why do those who differ from us impose on them a 
-different one? -And as to introducing confusion 
into the use of language, this is the very thing of 
: . * ihe BARS ey 


* 


‘ >» . . - : 
208 THE ARGUMENT ‘FROM . 


which they are pre-eminently guilty, while the me- 
thod we adopt is the only way of avoiding it. No 
confusion arises in ordinary intercourse from the. 
word cannot being frequently used to express de- 
termination only; and for this reason, that the’cases 
in which actions depend upon the state of mind are 
for the most part very manifest, and that in all such 
cases the word is known to reser to the determina- 
tion alone. If the language-of scripture is treated. 


on the same principle, there will be no confusion in 


the use of it; but if it comes to be insisted on that — 
the word cannot, must in all.cases denote some 
want of power, or that it may do so in some instan- 
ces where nevertheless the aci depends upon the state 
of the mind, this will introduce confusion enough 
and it would as grievously confound the intercourse 
of men, as it does the oracles of God. *  “ 
Should it be asked why, if men have power to 
repent, it is so repeatedly and strongly asserted that 
they cannot, it is only needful to ask in reply, why, 
in common life, we so frequently say we cannot doy 
a thing which we really can do. Thereason in both, 
cases is one and the same. It is that this fom of 
expression conveys the idea of fixed and unalterable 
determination more emphatically, and at the saris 
time less offensively, than any other. So when in 
reply to your importunate request, a friend says, I” 
cannot do it, it is equivalent to his telling you that it 
is of no use to press jim Turther, and it intimates at- 
‘time that his refusal arises from no unwil 
ige you, but from -the imperative in- 


SACRED WRIT. , 209 


fluence of other considerations. Just such is the 
use of these terms in sacred writ. They express 
the fixed determination of a sinner with great em- 


« »phasis, and afford, perhaps, the only .method by 


which the painful but important truth of its certain 


»prevalence can beconvincingly conveyed. 


_-We may, now-perhaps dismiss, without more 
particular consideration, the whole of the: passa- 


ges of scripture, the force of which lies in the.use of 


the term cannot. To*decide the import of pne, is to 
decide that of them all. With them, also, may be 
classed. the kindred term’ impossible, which occurs 
(Matt. xix: 26 ;) but wyrich is used, and must be in- 
terpreted, upon the same rtiainks as the almost 
identical word cannot, already considered. 

A phrase Serie wbat different occurs in“Rom. v. 6. 
*‘For when we were yet without strength, Christ 
died far the uhigodly. ” We conceive this passage 

“to be inapplicable to the question before us; inas- 
much as it seems ‘to refer,” not to the case of a sin- 
ner’s coming to God ‘through Chifst, but to the 


. practicability of opening a way for the approach of 


~a sinper ate all. Most*certainly qe are without 


strength t® make an atorfement for'sin, or to satisly ; 
_ any of the’ pie of God’s righteous law in res- 


‘pect of the justification of a sinner; and this con- 
. . a ‘ * " 
sideration gives great force to the statement of the 


apostle, that-in this helpless eondition, Christ died: 


forus. Butthis hasno connexion wit the present 
argument. The question © we are no w to answer 
pre-supibses that Clirist has died, and that the way 


. 2 


" conceived to be express declarations of human ina-™ 


210 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


he ti God through him is open; and weask, has a sin- 


ner power to come to God through Christ: a question 
very different froma that which relates to -his power 
_ to atone for sin, and to be answered on Fery differ-. 
ent principles. 
_ The same remark is applicable to anotherpassage, . 
which has been quoted in this connexion, from 
Rom. viii. 8° “So then, they that are in is flesh 
cannot please God.” The apostle in this place is 
not referring, to the actions of ungodly men, but to: 
_ their estimation inthe sight of God; and the sen- 
“timent would be more accurately capeeanae by say-- 
ing, Those who Are in the flesh cannot be acceptable 
+ : . » ena habs 2 } 
to God, or approved by him; Osa QPECAL OV Ov- 
VAVTOL. In this view the text has manifestly.no 
pearing érfthe. subject before us.. ' 
2. Besides the passages which contain theternt 
cannot and impossible, which. have’ beh erroneously. 


bility, there are others which are regarded as fur- 
, nishing powe?ful atixiliary evidence -on the same 
side. Such are the following: ‘“ Can the Ethio- 
pian change his skin, or the leopamd his spots? .Then «o 
may ye who are achat to do evil learns to” do, | 
well. Who are dead in, trespasses and sins. “Gan 
these dry bones live?” (Jer. ee “Ode A yee i. 1." 
Ezek. xxxvii. 3.) ~* 

We class these passages together’ at present, for - 
F making respecting them one general 
rege They are all of them plainly metaphor= 
are not literal, descriptions, but figures 


' of speech. It may perhaps be said that this is no 
uncommon.way of evading a difficulty, and may be 


used for ill purposes as well as good. * We are 


quite aware of this. But still it must be allowed 


that there are figurative expressions in the divine, 


oracles ; and while we fully admit, ‘On one hand, 


SACRED WRIT. 211 


? os 


‘that they have a. definite and important mes niet a 


which must not be frittered away, we must contend 
on the other, against any unwarrantable stretch of 
their signification. To avoid: difficulties on both 
sides, let us set down in a few words the rules by 
which the character and the import of any figura- 
tive expression may be ascertained. 

We agree, then, that every passage, and. every 
phrase, is to be taleen literally, unless there is some- 
thing in its position or use which determines it to 


be figurative, but every expression must be taken to . 


be figurative which in its literal sense is inapplica- 
ble to the subject to which it is applied. When, for 
example, our Lord says, John xv. 1. “Iam the true 
vine, and my Father -is the husbandman,” inas- 
much as the terms wine and husbandman are not 
literally applicable to the Divine Father and Son, 


we say they are figuratively used. Now there is no. 


difficulty whatever in the use of thisrule. The 
nature of the things ordinarily spoken of is sufli- 
ciently obvious to inform us, with very little trouble, 


whether the words applied to them are literally ap- _ 


plicable or not. If they are, we allow oi 
phor ; if they are not, we cannot deny jt. “ 
Let us inquire farthee what effect is prot uced on 


no meta- 


a; 


212 . THE ARGUMENT FROM. 


the meaning and interpretation of a word, when 
tis figuratively employed. ~ 

When a word is figuratively employed, it is taken ~ 
Sroma sulject to which it properly or strictly refers, 
and applied to one to which it doesnot properly refer. 
So when David says, “The Lord is my light:” he 


_ takes the word light, which properly refers to the 


effect of some luminous body on the eye, and ap- 


_ plies it to the influence of divine mercy on his mind. 


Now, when a word is so taken from one subject 
and applied to another, it is obviously impossible 
that, in its secondary: use, it can convey ail the 
ideas which it did in its primary one, the.two objects 
being far from having altogether the same proper- 
ties. The effect of using a word figuratively, there- 
fore, is to limit its signification, and to select some 
of the ideas it has conveyed in its proper employ- 
ment, for application in its new and (rhetorically 
speaking) improper one. Thus, in. saying, “ The 
Lord is my light,” the psalmist drops all the ideas 
belonging to light as a material body, &c. &c., and 
retains only those relating to its directing and cheer- 
ing influence. This rule, also, we shall find uni- 
formly and easily applicable. We have only to 
notice the features in which the objects compared 
either agree or disagree: in those in which they 
agree, the ordinary tmport of the term which is now 
metaphorically used will apply ys in those in which 
they do not agree, its application is not to be at- 
tempted. 

With these inthis rules in our hand, let us re- 


“— * 
cy 


* 


- - ee eee 
te fin nt for Vig “ 
q 


vey 


‘SACRED WRIT. PTS. 


sume the consideration of the ‘passages which 
await our attention. ag . : 
C1.) Jer. xiii. 23. “Can. the Ethiopian change 
his skin, and the leopard his spots? Then may ye 
who are accustomed to do evil leatn to do well.” 
The Ethiopian changing his skin, and the leopard his 
spots, is here putin comparison with aman ceasing to 
do evil, and learning to do well; that is, a change 
in the state of the body is compared witha change 
in the state of the mind,—a change in something 
in its.own nature unalterable by man, witha change 
in something which is susceptible of alteration, as 
the state of the mind undeniably ~is, by human 
means. It is evident that there is no similarity in 


. the two cases in respect of-capability of change; 


and on this point therefore nothing .can be learnt - 
from the comparison. The aspect in which the’ 
cases are similar is the: actual non-production of ° 
the result, and ‘the certainty that it will not be pro- 
duced. Let means to any extent be employed for 
the changing of the Ethiopian’s skin orthe deopard’s 
spots, the end will never be attained; and with equal 
certainty, notwithstanding the use of every means, 


* will those ~who have been accustomed to do evil, 


never learn to do. well. This we conceive to be 
the fair and full force of the metaphor here em- 


' ployed, and we most freely adopt it. Our readers 


will perceive, however, that, like the terms already 

noticed, it does nothing more tham express emphas 

tically the fixedness of a sinner’s determination— 

it indicates nothing respecting his power, only that 
: } . a 


4 » 
. 


- formance of vital action, as'seeing, hearing, feeling, 


zation from which these actions proceeded, or the 


* 


sf 5 ae THE ARGUMENT FROM 


by this very cir¢cumstance, the existence of it is im- ° 
plied. eae 
(2.)° ‘Eph. 111. 50. ‘14.- “You hath he quick- 
ened, who-were dead in tr espasses and sms. Awake 
thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead.” This 
is undoubtedly very forcible language, nor have we 
any inclination to weaken it. .Weapprehend, how- 


ever, that itis to be considered as figurative and not 


literal. The word death properly refers to organic 


or physical life; but hére it is applied to a state of 


the mind, which, though-it may be in some respects 
analogous to natural life, is manifestly not identi- 
cal with it, and to which, therefore, a term derived 
from so different a subject cannot be in every re- 
spect applicable. The import of the term death, - 
therefore, must be limited in this case; and not all 


’ » the ideas ordinarily conveyed by it can be transfer- 
* red to the new object, but only such as the existing 


analogy may permit. ‘The things put into compa- - 
rison with each other are the body under the influ- 
ence-of. death, and man, as a moral agent, under 
the influence BE a sinful disposition. iow; death 
producés two /principai effects: first the non-per- * 


&c.; and, secondly, the destruction of the organi- 


non-existence of power to perform them. In like 
manyer, a sinful disposition induces the entire non- 
sperformance of right action in one who is under its 
reigning influence; but the influence of a sinful 
disposition does nod destroy the structure from which 


SACRED WRIT. -- 215 


right action, may proceed, that being, as we have 
-shewn, no*other than the possession of intelligent 
faculties, with which God has made us, and which 
remaifs ‘as entirein the wicked asin eae We 
know, in fact, that whatever the influence of tres- 
passes and sins On a man’s mind may be, they do 
-not destroy ils powers of- action ; for in that case 
they would be no less incapable if evil than of good. 
‘The point intwhich an analogy does obtain between 
- the state of a dead body and that ofa mind under 
the influence of sin, is this} that as the destruction 


of animal life prevents the exercise of aniinal func- 
tions in fact, so right exercises of the mind are in 


- fact uf vautad by the influence of sin, and with as 


much certainty though not in a similar cause. All 


» that this passage teaches ws, therefore, ts the fixed- 
ness of a sinners determination, or the entire cer- 
tainty that men of themselves will not turn to God. 

Should any of our readers be dissatisfied with the 
view now given, it. will be material for them to 


shew, if it can be shewn, that the term dead has in: 


this case a literal, and not a figurative meaning. If 
they can do this, they will gain a great’ ddwanteds 
to their cause’ There are, however, some few dif- 


ficulties in the way of it. ‘We may observe, for ex-. . 
ample, that, literally- speaking, the soul-of aan is. 


not dead, but alive, as is SRS from. its continual 
action, though that action be wrong; to which it 
might be added'that the soul i is never to die, because 
it is immortal. The apostle, moreover, is not telling 
us in what state man is generally, butin what state 


216 : THE ARGUMENT FROM 


he is so far-as he is influenced by sin, —dead in for 
by] trespasses and sins ;” and we know that the in- 

fluence of sin is to make a man act,wrong, and not _ 
by any means to render him incapable of Sohic at. 
all. Other expressions, also, aré used on the same 
subject, which are quite incompatible with a literal 
interpretation of ‘this. As, for instance, in* one of 
the passages under consideration, “ Awake, thou 
. that sleepest, and arise from the dead.” How cana — 
ql man be at the same time both dead and asleep? Or 
if he be literally dead, what is it short of absurtlity: 
to call him dlind, or dull of hearing; or to ascribe to 
- him either evil or good in any form? These and 


a few other difficulties must-be surmounted, in or-"- 


der ‘to establish a literal meaning of the passages 


beforé us; and until this is done, the view taken of 


it above, we believe; cannot be impeached. 

(3.) To the same class of expressions belong 
those which represent men as blind or dull of hear- 
ing, or asleep;.“ The God of this world hath blind- 
ed the eyes of them which believe not. ‘Their ears 
are dull of hearing. Awake, thou that sleepest.” (2 
Cor. iv. 4;) (Acts xxviii. 27;) (Eph. v. 14.)* No 
question will be'raised, we suppose, as to the figura- 
tive character of this phraseology. Blindness, deaf- 
ness, and sleep, are states of the body: te which, if 
any state of the mind be analogous at all, it can be — 
only in part. So far as these tepms express an ea 
isting state of insensibility, they may be applied, 
with their utmost force, to the state of a sinner’s 
mind towards God;-he does neither perceive, nor at- 


‘\~ E : 


SACRED WRIT. tr 
* 


tend to the things of salvation: but so far as they 
indicate an incapacity for such actions, the applica- 
tion of them to the state of a sinner’s mind is for- * 
bidden by the known fact, that he is actually in the 
enjoyment of his rational and intelligent powers, 
which constitute his capacity for them all. These 
expressions, therefore, denote nothing more than an 
existing state of inattention to divine things, with 
the certainty Of its continuance. 

It may be observed, in passing, that, although it 
is manifestly unwarrantable to make a literal use of 
the texts we have been examining, it is on such an 
application of them that their whole force, as used 
with great frequency by divines of a certain class, 
depends. Exhorting sinners has been gravely com- 
pared to going into a burying ground, and calling 
to the dead ; just as though men under the influence 
of sim were literally dead, or dead in the whole 
sense of that term. What brave words may be built 
upon the most glaring and ruinous fallacies! 

It has often been imagined to be an insuperable 
difficulty in the way of maintaining human ability, 
that it involves apparently an express contradiction 
to the sacred scriptures, and much wonder Seems to 
have been felt that the advocates of the sentiment 
have not been startled by so tremendous a necessi- 
ty. Such an appearance, however, results neces- 
sarily and in all cases from the use of analogical 
language. For example, the bible affirms that God 
is a sun and shield; yet who would hestitate to say 
that God is not either a sun ora shield? Of bread 

Oo 


ee . 
218 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


Christ declared that it was his body; yet we main- 
tain without scruple that the sacramental bread is 
- not the body of Christ. Do we feel guilty in either 
of these cases of contradicting the word of God? 
Certainly not. Whenever words are used out of 
their strict reference, they are true in one sense and 
false in another; and necessarily so, because it per- 
tains to such a use of words to retain only a part of 
their ordinary meaning. Thus it may’be said of the 
declaration ‘‘No man can come unto me,” that, if 
the word can be analogically used in it, as we have 
endeavoured to shew, itis true in one sense, and in 
another it is false. Take such part of the ordinary 
meaning of the word cannot as the analogy in the 
case justifies, and it is true; but take such part as is 
not justified by the existing analogy, and you make 
a new assertion, one which Christ never intended, 
and this assertion is false. Seeming contradictions 
are thus, when properly understood, harmonious 
truths. God doth is and is not a sun and shield; 
bread both is and is not the body of Christ; man 
both can and cannot turn to God ; conversion is both 
possible and impossible with men; sinners are at the 
same time both dead and alive. The one series of 
these assertions is true figuratively, and the other 
is true literally. When I say God is nota sun, it is 
no way contradictory of the text which declares 
that he is one, because that text is meant to inti- 
mate only that in some respects he is like one. And 
when I say men can come to Christ, it is equally, 
remote from opposition to his affirmation that they 


Vai 


SACRED WRIT. 219 


cannot, because the only intended meaning of those 
words is that they certainly will not, being in this 
respect like men that caitnot. A very instructive 
and convincing example of this use of terms has al- 
ready been before us, in the various forms in which 
the evangelists record the quotation of Isaiah vi. 9, 
10, in the discourses of our Lord, which may here 
again be exhibited for attentive perusal. ‘‘ Hear ye 
«indeed, but understand not; see ye indeed, but per- 
ceive not. Make the heart of this people gross and 
make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they 
Should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, 
and understand with their heart, and convert, and 
be healed.—They seeing see not; and hearing they 
hear not, neither do they understand. By hearing 
ye shall hear, and shall not understand ; and seeing 
ye shall see, and not perceive; for this people’s 
heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hear- 
ing, and their eyes have they closed; lest at any 
time they should see with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and should understand with their heart, 
and should be converted, and I should heal them.— 
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and 
hearing they may hear, and not understand, lest at 
any time they should be converted.—That seemg 
they might not see, and hearing they might not un- 
derstand.” 

If it be true, therefore, that the terms in question 
are figuratively or analogically employed, we are 
running no hazard by a mere apparent contradiction 
of them. It is no real contradiction ; but, in fact, is 


* - 
220 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


absolutely necessary in order to set these passages 
of scripture in their true light. It has been repro- 
bated as, if not incorrect,at least unguarded, to af- 
firm in an unqualified manner that men can come 
to Christ, because Christ expressly declares they 
cannot. Let us only suppose that the same princi- 
ple had been acted upon in reference to those other 
words of his, which are entitled to at least equal 
reverence, “This zs my body ;” that no person should 
ever have dared to say bread was not his body, be- 
. cause he expressly affirmed that it was: what would 
have been the result? The doctrine of transub- 
stantiation would not have been exploded to the 
present day. And asimilar mischief is now result- 
ing from the unwillingness to affirm that men can 
come to Christ; it allows and encourages men to 
suppose that they literally and truly cannot; it con- 
ceals the very important fact of the limited import 
of the term in this connexion; and so renders our 
over-scrupulous regard to the letter of God’s word 
subversive of its real meaning, and conducive to 
the propagation of pernicious and destructive error. 

3. Having disposed of, the passages which have 
been conceived to indicate a want of power, as the 
operating cause in a sinner’s impenitence, and en- 
deavoured to shew that they express nothing more 
than the fixedness of a sinner’s determination, we 
may proceed to notice some by which the latter idea 
is directly conveyed. . 

(1.) We may be permitted briefly to refer agai 
to the texts already quoted, which aflirm that sin- 


** 


SACRED WRIT. 221 


ners will not come to God through Christ. “Ye 
will not come unto me that ye might have life. 
How often would I have gathered thy children to- 
gether, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her 
Wings, and ye would not. Ye would none of my 
reproof.” (John v. 49; Matt. xxiii, oie: ETOye 
25.) Here is no metaphor. The words are used 
in their literal sense, and must be taken strictly to 
mean that men’s determination not to come to 
Christ is the reason why they do not come. But if 
so, then if cannot be true that they are unable; for 
in that case their inability would be the reason, or 
at least a part of the reason, why they did not come, 

(2.) Another class of expressions may here be 
noticed. “Because I have called and ye refused, 
I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded, 
but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would 
none of my reproof. For that they hated knowledge, 
and did not choose the fear of the Lord. Seeing ye 
put away from you the word of God.” (Prov. i. 24, 
25,29; Acts xiii. 46.) It is clearly stated in these 
texts that men’s impenitence’is of the nature of a 
refusal, a setting at nought, ora putling away of the 
Sospel message. Now, these are acts which arise 
from a state of the mind, and which, from their 
Own nature, can arise from nothing“else. That non- 
performance of a thing which arises from want of 
power is never called a refusal, nor can it be so 
Without a flagrant absurdity. It seems evident, 
therefore, that the only cause operating to prevent 
men from coming to Christ is the state of their 

02 


222 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


minds, which, according to the definitions laid down 
in the outset, is totally distinct and widely different 
from a want of power. 

(3.) Phraseology of similar import occurs in 
John iii. 19. “This is the condemnation, that 
light is come into the world, and men have loved 
darkness rather than light fecaiee their deeds were 
evil.” The truth here inculcated is, that because 
men continue in spiritual ignorance they prefer it 
to spiritual knowledge; they love darkness rather 
than light. But could it be said of a blind man that 
he did not see because he would rather not See? Sure- 
ly, if a man’s spiritual ignorance arises from pre- 
ference, it cannot be held at the same time to arise 
from incapacity; because, ifhe were incapable, there 
could be no opportunity for preference to be exer- 
cised. The act of preference between two objects, 
necessarily implies a power of choice respecting 
both. 

(4.) There is yet another very striking expression 
used by our Lord, in quoting the important passage 
from Isaiah already noticed, as recorded by Matt- 
ch. xiii. 15. “For this people’s heart is waxed 
gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their 
eyes have they closed: lest at any time they should 
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and un- 
derstand with their heart, and 1 should heal them.” 
See also Acts xxviii. 27. No question can be en- 
tertained of the accuracy of the meaning thus attri- 
buted to this passage by the great prophet of his 
church. Ignorance of divine things, or spiritual 


. 2 


+ 


SACRED WRIT. 223 


blindness, is ascribed to the closing of their eyes by 
sinners themselves ; inevitably implying that they 
have eyes to close, that their eyes are capable of seeing, 
and that they will certainly see, unless wilfully closed. 
From the latter part of the verse it seems plain, al- 


‘so, that the dulness of hearing and the grossness of 


heart were equally voluntary. Sinners close their 
ears as well as their eyes, and harden their own 
hearts by a determined inattention to divine truth, 
for no other reason than because an attention to it 
would interfere with some other things, in which 
they are resolved not to be disturbed. 

(5.) We may notice, also, the language of the 
apostle, (1 Cor. ii. 14.) “ The natural man discern- 
eth not the things of the Spirit ef God; neither can 
he know them, because they are spiritually discern- 
ed?” ‘The important question respecting this,pas- 
sage is, what are we to understand by an object 
being spirviually discerned? Simply, I conceive, 
that the discernment: of it is favored or prevented by 
the state of the mind. We know that there are 
many things, or, to speak more strictly, many pro- 


perties of things, which we discern more or less 


clearly, or not at all, according to the state of the 
mind. A miser does not see the happiness of libe- 
rality, nor a voluptuary the pleasures of beneficence, 
The things of God are pre-eminently of this kind, 
The glory of God, the excellence of his law, the 
sinfulness of sin, the awfulness of eternity and all 
things else pertaining to salvation, have the proper- 
ty of being discerned or overlooked according to the 
03 : 


THE ARGUMENT FROM oy 


state of the observer’s mind. “ They are spittle 


discerned ;” and because they are so, as long as the 
state of his mind is that of a natural man, namely, 
enmity to God, he cannot, that is, in point of fact he’ 


will not, discern them. But, inasmuch as the state 
of his mind is the only impediment to such discern- 
ment, the absence of it is by this passage distinctly 
referred to a want of disposition, and not to a want 


of power. 


(6.) There is another passage deserving of notice, 


in which our Loxd plainly states the cause which 
induces him to say that men cannot come to him to 
be of astrictly voluntary kind. (John v.44.) “How 
can ye believe, w/o receive honour one of another?” 
There is no compulsion upon sinners, we suppose, 
to attach an undue importance to the honour which 
cometh from men. It is nothing more than the 
state of their minds which induces them to do so; 
yet it was as influenced by this disposition alone that 
our Lord declared they could not believe. The in- 
ference seems to be irresistible, that nothing but the 
state of their minds prevented their believing. 

(7.) To these references may be added, Luke 
vill. 15; where, in the parable of the sower, the 
fruitfulness of the word is ascribed to its being “ re- 
ceived into an honest and good heart.” All that is 
necessary to the efficacy of divine truth, therefore, 
is aright state of mind; and if so, there is no want 
of additional power. 


: 


The fact which we conceive to be established by * 


the passages which have now gone under review Is 


[ . 7 SACRED WRIT. 


‘this: that the. seriptures uniformly representa sin- 

i ner’s impenitence as resulting, not from a want of 
. power, but from a want of disposition alone. We 

- conclude, therefore, that disposition is wanting, and 
power is not. Had it been so, we could searcely 
have searched the bible so far, Fiiheat finding some, 
We might rather say many and unequivocal, indi- 
cations of the fact. 


CHAP. XII. 


The argument frem express words of scripture con- 
cluded. 


III. AwNoruer class of scriptures illustrative of 
the point under consideration, may be found in 
those which describe the nature of the change wrought 
in the conversion of a sinner. The work effected 
in this case must of course correspond with the 
previous impediment to conversion. Now, the 
scriptures speak frequently and expressly of this 
work, and uniformly represent it to lie, not in any 
alteration of the means or power of repentance, but 
of the state of heart, or disposition. The following 
passages may serve asa specimen. 

_ Ezek. xxxvi. 26. “A new heart willl give you, 
- anda new spirit will I put within you; and I will 
take away the séony heart out of your flesh, and 


see er 


a oe 


_— 2 =. 


226 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


will give you a heart of flesh.” A new heart here 


@vidently means a new state of heart, or disposi- 
tion, as appears from the following phrase, a new 
spirit: and the beautiful metaphor which closes 
the verse, conveys the same sentiment under a dif- 
ferent form. Here is no reference to power. 

Psalm cx. 2. “Thy people shall be willing in 
the day of thy power.” By the day of power in 
this passage, of course, we understand the period 
when the blessed Spirit operates savingly on the 
heart; and when he does so, the making of a sin- 
ner willing is declared to be the nature of his 
work. Could this have been said if it were the 
Spirit’s work to give power ? . 

John vi. 44. “No man can come unto me, ex- 
cept the Father which hath sent me, draw him.” 
The use of the word draw in this passage is wor- 
thy of observation. Drawing is a process not any 
way adapted to the need of a man who has no 
power ,; it pertains rather to one who wants inclina- 
tion. The work of the Spirit denoted by this 
word must be the gracious influence exercised upon 
the heart of a sinner, sweetly overcoming his hi- 
therto cherished resistance, and making him willing 
in the day of power. 7s 

Acts xvi. 14. “ The Lord opened Lydia’s heart, 
that she attended to the things which were spoken 
of Paul.’ The work of the Spirit “as here des- 
cribed, consisted not in communicating power, but 
ia opening the heart to attend to the truth, or in in- | 
ducing 2 disposition to attend to it; which Lydia — 


—ee 


SACRED WRIT. 227 


must have had power to do before, or else she could 
Not have done it merely in consequence of a change 
of her disposition. 

If the change produced in the conversion of a 
sinner were giving him power to repent, such lan- 
guage as this would surely be adapted to mislead. 
Not a single passage that we are aware of can be 
adduced to shew that the Spirit of God’confers on 
a sinner any additional means, or power of repen- 
tance. Yet, if power were wanting, he infallibly 
must do so ; and if he really did this, so important 
a part of his work would certainly not have been 
overlooked. 

It will probably-occur to the reader that the ope- 
ration of the Holy Spirit in conversion is compared 
toa new birth, and even to a new creation. (John iii. 
3; 2 Cor. v.17.) This language has been conceiy- 
ed to indicate the production of new powers, as well 
as of new action. As it is manifest,showever, that 
these are but comparisons, so, according to what has 
already been stated, it is important to observe the 


true extent of the analogy subsisting between the 


oljects compared. Birth and creation, it will be 
admitted, do involve the production of new powers. 
But, when these terms are applied to the conversion 
of a sinner, we are immediately met by the fact 
that the powers of moral action in man are already 
in existence, namely, his intelligent faculties. Here 


41s no room, therefore, for the production of new 


powers ; and hence, of necessity, the analogy, and 
the force of the metaphor, are confined to the pro- 
03 


228 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


duction of new action. Now, the production of new 
action in the mind is identical with a change ef 
disposition, disposition being the source of habitual 
and permanent action. ‘To which it may be added, 
that the change in character and conduct subse- 
quent upon a change of disposition, or of the habi- 
tually prevalent state of the heart, in the case of a 
sinner towards God, is of quite sufficient magnitude 
and extent to justify the application of the plirases 
under examination. ‘If any man be in Christ, he 
is a new creature: old things are passed away, and 
all things are become new.” 

In a few instances the same analogical use of 
terms may be observed, which prevails so largely in 
reference to the impenitence of man. ‘So the apos- 
tle says, “ I thank God, who hath enadled me.”— 
But it is manifest that the word enadled refers toan 
operation on the state of his mind, and indicates 
only the production of a particular disposition. At 
the same time it is remarkable that this kind of 
phraseology is much less frequently employed re- 
specting the divine interposition for the production 
ot good, than the sinner’s determination in the 
working of evil. Of those who do not turn to God, 
it is much more frequently said they cannot do it, 
than it is of those who do turn to him that they are 
enabled to do it; they are made. willing. Some- 
times a marked diversity of expression occurs in 
the same passage; as where our Lord says, “ No 
man can come unto me, except the Father which 
hath sent me draw him ;” in which.case it was ob- 


SACRED WRIT. 299 © 


viously most natural to have said, “ except the Fa- 
ther enable him.” This difference shews that 
there was a peculiar end to be answered by the 
use of the term cannot. We conceive, that it 
was designed to express more emphatically the 
fixedness. of man’s determination against God; 
while the language applied to the work of the Spirit, 
has been framed to exhibit more particularly the 
voluntary nature of conversion, without concealing 
the knowledge and manifest power of the influence 
by which itis wrought. 

Among the passages adduced in this controversy 
by those who differ from us, we have observed 
many which simply state the fact that salvation 7s 
of the Lord; that his people are made willing in 
the day of his power; that all Zion’s children are 
taught of the Lord ; and are born, not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of man, but of God.— 
(Psalm iii. S. ex. 3. Isa. liv. 18. John i. 13.) 

Undoubtedly these are highly important and de- 
cisive passages as to the fact that the conversion of 
a sinner is in every case produced by divine influence; 
a fact to the cordial admission of which, the present 
volume bears ample and unequivocal testimony. But 
how does the assertion of this fact bear upon the ques- 
tion at issue? Here are two causes supposed, namely, 
the inability and enmity of man, either of which 
will operate to render the Spirit’s influence neces- 
sary to the conversion of a sinner; whichever of 
them may be conceived to be in operation, there- 
fore the necessity of that influence is consistently 


" 


230 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


maintained, and consequently the fact, that conver- 
sion never takes place but by virtue of its exercise. 
Texts of scripture which merely assert this, assert 
an important truth, but they assert nothing which 
affects the point under discussion. This ground is 
o-cupied in common by both parties in the dispute, 
and is quite remote from the field in which the con- 
test is to be decided. The introduction of these 
passages may excite the more observation, because 
they have often been brought forward with great 
ostentation, and exhibited with much parade of 
scripture proof, as though they alone were alto- 
gether decisive of the controversy ; while, in fact, 
it indicates nothing more than an entire misunder- 
standing of the subject, unless it should discover too, 
what we are very unwilling to suspect, a wish to 
depreciate an argument by raising an unfounded 
prejudice against those who advance it. 

The import and bearing of holy scripture in other 
aspects has been, or yet will be noticed, in other 
parts of this volume. It has been our object here 
to, observe the passages which bear upon our subject 
directly, and to shew that they are in unison with 
the general argument; which we trust has been sa- 
tisfactorily done. 1t will occasion the writer the 
deepest affliction, if, however unconsciously, he 
has been jed in these remarks to alter or to dimin- 
ish the full and true import of the divine word; and 
unutterably would he be ashamed of himself, if he 
could harbor a wish to evade, in however unwel- 
come a direction, the force of truth: but as, on the 


< 


SACRED WRIT. 231 


one hand, he hopes he has no aim but to know the 
mind of Christ; so, on the other, he solemnly be- 
lieves what he hasstated to be the correct expression 
of that. mind, so far as the passages examined are 
‘eoncerned. He has not, perhaps, adduced every 
text on which stress has been laid in this diseussion; 
but those which have been brought forward he hopes 
are fair specimens of the classes to which they be- 
long, and sufficient to establish and illustrate the 
principles on which the whole are to be interpreted. 
Nothing is more true or more important than the 
sentiment, that the express and direct sense of scrip- 
ture, wherever it can be ascertained, must deter- 
mine every matter of religious opinion; but the 
case before us is one in which this very maxim has 
been made the foundation and the bulwark of an 
extensive and long prevalent error. ‘The declara- 
tion that men cannot come to Christ having been 
once supposed to mean that they have no power to 
do so, tlie force with which this is asserted seems 
to have attached to the-mistake a most unmerited 
character of sacredness and inviolability. What- 
ever might be disputed, this must not be called in 
question, because it was expressly asserted; and he 
who would dare to suggest a doubt of it could not but 
incur the heaviest accusations of heterodoxy and 
heresy. Slender basis for so vast a superstructure! 
Upon what films can wide-spreading errors be esta- 
blished! The whole is but an oversight; a mere 
inadvertency, in misinterpreting analogical phrase- 
ology as though it were literal, and thus throwing. 


as F 


i 
Bey PSA 
a as 

» ; bia) 


233" THE ARGUMENT FROM 


out of view other portions of the divine word, a 
fearless examination of which would instantly have 
dispelled the delusion. The writer yields to no 
man in his willingness to submit to the direct sense 
of scripture, it is because he is convinced that it is 
a mistake; and he calls upon his brethren opposed 
to him in argument to abide by their own principle, 
and to vindicate their claim to a supreme veneration 
for God’s word. Which do they love best; their 
system, which they have long imagined the word 
of God tosupport; or the word of God, which they 
may now perceive leaves their system to fall? The 
writer hopes and believes the latter: but the result 
will declare it. 


CHAP. XIII. 


Whether the sentiment which ascribes power to man 
does not pre-enunently humble the sinner, and glo- 
rify God:— The argument from the tendency of 
the doctrine.. 


Ir we were tosay that the apparent tendency of 
a sentiment should in all cases be held decisive of 
its real character and truth, we should doubtless be 
going too far. With our limited and imperfect 
knowledge, we may not always be competent judges 


THE DOCTRINE. 233 


on such a point; we may ourselves be misled by 
error, or blinded by our feelings. Yet there are 
grounds on which an inquiry into the tendency of 
an opinion is both reasonable and important. Every 
thing which is just in sentiment must also be right 
in tendency ; rectitude in sentiment being nothing 
mote than an accurate view of things as they really 
exist, and things as they really exist being adapted 
by divine wisdom to exert a right influence on the 
heart. If an opinion, therefore, according to its le- 
gitimate use, tends apparently to evil, this is a pre- 
sumptive evidence of its fallacy ; as, on the other 
hand, there is a presumption in favor of its truth, 
“if it tends to good. Though this is not to be con- 
sidered as a principal argument, it is an important 
auxiliary one, it is proper that every sentiment 
should be brought to this test, as a help towards 
ascertaining its character. 

With respect to the accofdance of religious opin- 
ions with the truth of the gospel in this point, we 
have considerable facility ofjudgment. The divine 
dispensation of mercy has very distinct and peculiar 
features. Its aspect is by no means vague or equi- 
vocal; in the midst of its boundless condescension 
and riches of grace, its tendency is manifestly to 
abase man, and exalt his Maker. To the former is 
allotted shame and confusion of face, deep criminali- 
ty and ill-desert ; to the latter is ascribed unbounded 
and self-moved love, rich, free, and sovereign, as 
the sole spring of all that is happy for man, or ex- 
cellent in him. It is an easy and effectual mode, 


THE TENDENCY OF 


therefore, of bringing a doctrine to the test, to ask 
what is its tendency. Does it abase the sinner? 
Does it glorify God? Does it breathe the acknowl- 
edged spirit of his dispensation of grace? 

The writer cannot help picturing to himself the 
surprise which one class of his readers may feel, at - 
his bringing the doctrine he has endeavored to main- — 
tain to the test now before us; or the joy which 
may be felt by others at the anticipation of its ap- 
proaching discomfiture. There is scarcely a point 
in which our brethren who oppose the sentiment of 
man’s ability imagine themselves so strong as In 
this. They conceive that it tends to exalt the crea- 
ture; and take this to be so entirely beyond doubt,» | 
that on this ground its condemnation with them is 4 
already past. They may be assured, however, that 
they proceed too rapidly. With the semblance of 
an impregnable fortress, they have no real strength. 
There is not the leasttunwillingness to bring the 
doctrine we advocate to this test; on the contrary, 
we are very desirous of it; being fully convinced 
that the result will be eminently in its favor. If it 
do not tend to humble man and to glorify God, let 
it perish and be forgotten! 

1. Let us then recalf the sentiment itself, that 
our view of it maybe accurate. We maintain that — 
man, in his present condition, possesses power to be 
what he ought to be; understanding by power, 
the means of being so. In order to guard agaist 
the perplexity which may arise from the frequent 
analogical use of the word power, it. may perhaps 


a. 


THE DOCTRINE. 235 


be better to use the word means, as strictly of the 
same import. Our enquiry is, first, whether the idea 
that man possesses the means of being what he ought 
to be, tends to exalt or to humble him as a sinner. 

Now it appears evident that the ascription to man 
of more abundant means of being what he ought to 
be, must have a direct tendency to represent himas the 
more deepl y guilty if heis not what he ought to be. 

Even upon the supposition of our brethren, 
(which, however, we do not admit,) that man may 
be guilty, 7m some measure, though he have nomeans 
of being otherwise than he is, it seems plain that if 
he have means of being so, his guilt mustbe greater; 
and greatest of all according to the opinion which 
ascribes to him the amplest means. ‘To say thata 
man does not love God when he cannot, may be to 
say a bad thing of him; but to say that he does not 
love God when he can, is surely to say something 
worse; or Which is the same thing, to affirm that 
man has power to love God, is to represent him in a 
light which aggravates his guilt, and tends more 
deeply to abase him. 

Yet all we have maintained is that man has the 
means of being what he ought to be; an opinion 
which, instead of exalting a sinner, has so direct a 
tendency to humble him, that whoever desires to 
humble him most deeply should obviously maintain 
it with the greatest emphasis. , 

It can scarcely be less than wonderful that this 


consequence should ever have been overlooked ; but 


it may perhaps be ascribed to the influence a one 


or other of the following fallacies. 
P -* 


~ $36 THE TENDENCY OF 


1. Itmay be thought by some that power is an 
excellency; and that to ascribe power to man is to as- 
cribe goodness to him, which inlus fallen state, can- 
not justly be done. 

The error committed here lies in not observing 
the distinction between man as a@ creature, and man 
as a moral agent; or between natural and moral 
qualities. Looking at any creature, as such, the 
possession of power, or the means of action, is an 
excelleney, inasmuch as it confers an adaptation 
for some superior kind of action. So the power of 
performing moral actions is an excellency in man, 
enabling him to do what other creatures cannot.— 
But when we regard man as a moral agent, and ask 
wherein his excellency as such consists, itis not in — 
power, but in the right useof power; notin having 
means of aetion, but in well employing them. Power 
is a natural excellence, but not a moral one; an ex-» 
cellence of structure, but not of character. It is 
excellence, but not goodness: and therefore to as- 
eribe power to man is not to ascribe to him any good- 
ness at all. 

That this is the true idea of power, or means of 

action, may appear more fully than this, ‘that the 
employment of it is not necessarily good. Power 
may be used for evil, and it is in many eases so 
used; so that it might in these cases be regarded as 
anevilitself. The fact is, however, that power has 
no moral charaeter at all; it is neither evil nor 
good; but a mere instrument of action, by the va- 
ried employment of which good or evil character 
is formed and exhibited. 


THE DOCTRINE. 237 


2. It may bealleged, perhaps, that if power itself 
be not amoral eaxcellency, power to do good must be 
80. 

But what then is power to do good? According 
to our definition of power, itis the means of doing 
good and nothing more. Butis the possession of the 
means of doing good a moral excellency? A rich 
man has the means of being charitable ; is this any 
goodness in him? If this question needs no-answer, 
so neither does the following: A wicked. man has 
the means of serving God; is this any goodness in 
him? The same principle decides both cases. The 
means of doing good constitute no moral excellency. 

3. It may be said that disposition 1s power, and 
disposition to do good is goodness. 

Most certainly, disposition to do good is good- 
ness: but the reader will be kind enough to recol- 
lect that we do not allow power and disposition to be 
the same. If he is disposed to go over that ground 
again, we can only refer him to chap. li. page ree 

4. It may be urged that all power is declared to 
be of God; and that, therefore, if power be ascribed 
to man, it is derogatory to the glory of God. 

There is no doubtmbut all things are of God.— 
Every creature is endowed by his hand with what- 
ever faculties it possesses, and is entirely depend- 
ent upon him for their continuance. In this sense, 
our power to act at all is of God; so likewise is 
our power to breathe, and our power to do evilas 
well as good. If, therefore, itis any way deroga- 
tory to God’s honor to say that a man has power 


238 THE TENDENCY OF 


to do good, it must be equally so to say that he has 
power to do evil, or to perform any of the functions 
of life. In fact, however, there is nothing dishon- 
orable to God in either. Whatever powers God 
has given us, we possess ; and to say what powers 
_ we possess is to say in other words what powers 
God has given us, ‘T'o describe manas hezs implies 
no question as to Avs origin, nor any insinuation of 
his independence. 

When the power by which man works righteous- 
ness is said to be of God, it is necessary to recol- 
lect the double import of the term. An application 
of the principle by which the use of words is to be 
ascertained, will shew that the term power is here 
employed analogically, not in reference to the 
means of acting, but to the disposition to act. And 
if this be the,case, all language of this kind is re- 
mote from the question: as we do not ascribe to 
man any disposition to act right, but simply the 
means of doing so. The fact, therefore, that God 
gives man the disposition to serve him by a special 
communication of grace, argues nothing respecting * 
the means of serving’ him, which he still may, or 
may not, possess by nature. jy 

To return from these digressions. In ascribing 
to man the means—that is, the power—of loving 
and serving God, we do nothing to exalt him, but 
every thing to abase him. Let the sentiment we 
maintain be compared in this respect with that 
which is opposed to it. Affirm that man has no 
power to act right; does that abase him? Itlowers 


- 


THE DOCTRINE. 9sqr—— Mice 


him, indeed, by denying the principal attribute 
which raises him above the brutes, but it does not 
dishonor him; it sinks his nature, but, it does not 
impugn his character. Upon this principle, in order 
to humble man more we should say that he has no 
power to think, none to reason, none to admire, none 
to be happy ; let us only-go on in the same direc- 
tion, and we may ultimately reduce him to an oys- 
ter or a zoophyte. Profoundly humiliating indeed! 
But ali this while what charge of Guitt is fixed on 
him? What blame is attached to*him? Of what 
criminality does he stand convicted? Absolutely 
mone. Every diminution of his power, on the con- 
trary, removes him from the possibility of being 
etther evil or good, and with the incapacity of an 
oyster, he attains also its innocence. 

To deny power to man, therefore, is a preposter- 
ous method of attempting to abase him. But this 
isnotall. The species of power which our brethren 
refuse to ascribe to man is precisely that which is 
necessary to his being humbled, and without a consci- 
ousness of which he can never feel any abasement at 
all. 'They affirm that man has no power, or means 
of doing good, or of avoiding evil; in which case, ww 
we maintain it to be impossible that a man should 
feel himself blameworthy, for.either doing evil, or 
for not doing good. Whatever man may be accused 
of, a sincere and honest conviction that he had no 
means of doing otherwise always amounts toa full 
justification of himself in hisown eyes, and must 
do so, while his rational constitution remains unim- 

P2 


ists TENDENCY OF 


paired. Use dheh aground as this, therefore, no 
feeling of humiliation can ever arise. 

The state of things which thus opens to us is 
truly admirable. Here are men who profess to 
hold doctrines abasing the creature, and cry down 
a sentiment because it exalts him; while the doc- 
trine they espouse annihilates the possibilitv of 
blame, and furnishes the sinner with a complete 
justification ; and that which-they oppose, not only 
carries the guilt of the sinner to the highest pitch, 
but affords the only ground on which he ean be con- 
victed of eriminality at all. Under what infatua- 
tion can it be, that, professing to maintain the deep 
criminality of transgression, they seize upon that 
on which the very existence of criminality depends, 
and strive to blot it out from the records of truth, 
and from the conscience of man? Allow that man 
has power to be and to do what he pleases, whether 
right or wrong, and you may hold him blameworthy; 
deny this, and let him be what he may, he is inno- 
cent. Yet this is the very thing which is singled 
out for denial. That is the doctrine, therefore, 
which exalts the creature; for it enables him to 
look with complacency on his heart and life, with 
all their iniquities; to justify himself, notwithstand- 
ing all the accusations of the law of God; and 
even to lift up his head with insult in the presence 
of his Maker and his Judge. Ours is the doctrine 
to abase man, and is the*only doctrine which at- 
' taches to him a particle of real criminality, If he 
has power to serve God, then disobedience is a crime 


THE DOCTRINE. 244 


—the sinner himself cannot but allow it to be so: 
and a crime fully proportionate to the glory of God, 
and the vastness of our obligations. , 

Let the influence of the two sentiments be embo- 
died in two hypothetical cases. Let us imagine 
that we hear one person in a soliloquy of the fol- 
lowing kind. “ They tell me that I have sinned. 
They speak awfully of my breaking God’s com- 
mandments, and of the punishment hereafter to be 
inflicted upon me. They say I ought to be deeply 
ashamed of myself; but I could not help it. Sin is 
natural to me. It is in my constitution, and J have 
no power to be otherwise than Tam. If Iam to be 
otherwise than I am, therefore, the Lord must make 
‘me so. It is dinamecitetill to bladed me; for Ihave 
done the very best I could, and certainlu cannot blame 
myself.” . 

We have carefully avoided i in this case the use 
of all strong expressions, lest we should be suppos- 
ed to have overcharged the picture.» Let us now 
hear a soliloquy of a different kind. “Ihave heard 
that I ought to love God and to serve him; that I 
ean do both; and that, with due consideration of 
his word, I shall certainly be led to do both. It is 
certain that I have never meditated seriously on the 
contents of the bible. .I have bent my attention to 
the world; I have voluntarily avoided every thing 
adapted to render me serious; I have cherished an 
aversion to God and his ways ; I have said to him, 
Depart from me. I have thus wilfully neglected 
the means of loving him. The heart which I could 

P3 


Pav see 
be 


~ 242 THE TENDENCY OF 


have given to him, I have given toanother. Affec- 
tions which might have been engaged for him, have 
been willingly enlisted against him, till now I hate 
him and hits ways. Wretch that 1 am! who shall 
express the depth of my wickedness? Is it thus I 
have treated God when he called me? Is it thus I 
have hardened my heart against those glorious 
truths, which, if l had but duly meditated on them, 
would have melted me into gratitude and love? 
How justly may he look on me withanger! How 
righteously will his indignation burn against me, 
even to the lowest hell! How bitterly must I re- 
proach myself, as voluntary in my deepest guilt, 
and the author of my own ruin! O thou, my ma- 
ker and judge! wherewithal shall I come before . 
thee? By what arguments can my conduct be 
justified, or,by what excuses ean it be extenuated ?” 
The reader of course will judge, whether the 
natural tendency of the doctrines in question has 
been now fairly represented. He may easily satisfy 
bimself that these are not fictitious cases. Let him 
observe the many persons around him who are not 
of a contrite spirit, and inquire why it is that a 
load of guilt like theirs occasions them no grief, 
and hewwill often have for answer, “ I cannot help 
it; you know I cannot do any better of myself.” If, . 
on the other hand, he should ever meet with one 
who holds this unwelcome sentiment of man’s 
ability, he may be reckless about sin on other 
grounds, but he will always say, “ Well, J know I 
am tobe blamed.’ Such is Spe influence of the two 


: 


. 7 po ee 
THE DOCTRINE. 243 


sentiments in fact; and it may not be going too far 
to say, that, of all the errors working mischief in 
the heart of man, the notion of his own inability is 
incomparably the most prolific source of self-com- 


> placency and religious unconcern. 
-’ II. Having seen how the doctrine of man’s 


ability tends to abase the creature, let us now in- 
quire, in the second place, whether it tends to glo- 
rify ‘the Creator. | 

We may begin by remarking generally, that God 
is glorified in exactly the same proportion as man is 
abased; the quantity of shame and confusion of 
face belonging to the sinner being the precise mea- 
sure of the grace exercised by the Saviour. If 
there were no sin there could be no grace; and by 
whatever degree sin is magnified, in the-same pro- 
portion is grace glorified. Whatever sentiment, 
therefore, most humbles the sinner, most glorifies 
God: but we have already seen that the doctrine of 
man’s ability most humbles the sinner; and we 
may conclude, therefore, that it will also most glo- 


rify God. 


But to go into particulars. The glory of God in 
salvation, or that aspect of his glory pertaining to 
the present argument, consists in its being regarded 
as an act of grace, free, sovereign, and infinite. The 
true idea of grace seems to be that of undeserved 
bounty, kindness to the unworthy ; and the degree of 
grace manifested obviously accords with the degree 
of unworthiness in the objects of it. To say. that 
grace is free and sovereign, is to say that there is 


ma we dag oe , ‘ 
a te THE TENDENCY OF 


* 


nothing inthe objects of it adapted to excite it; but 
that it springs solely from God’s own bosom, vie is 
regulated in its exercise by his own good Haas 

The question respecting the glory of God in sal- 
vation, therefore, resolves itself into one respecting 
~ the cannlnneds of man. Js man undeserving of 
the kindness of God? Is he utterly undeserving of 
it ; without any thing, of whatever nature, adapted to 
induce it? Is his character adapted rather to repel 
divine mercy, and to inflame just indignation? Is 
his criminalily so great as to rendenit a matter of 
endless wonder that he should ever be forgiven? 

Let us first see how these questions can be answered 
on the supposition that man has not power to be what 
he ought to be. The case then is simply that of a 
person who has fallen into some calamity without the 
means of avoiding it, and consequenily without any 
fault on his part.- It may certainly be deemed kind 
to render assistance in such a case; and if this is 
what God has done, we would be very far from in- 
einuating that it is not grace, since any regard to 
creatures must be in him a matter of infinite conde- 
scension. Nor will we here stop to inquire whéther 
kindness of such a description confers any eminent 
lustre on the character of a benefactor ; whether it 
could furnish just occasion of exalted éncomium; 
whether it be more than accordant with the univer- 
sal law of loving our neighbour as ourselves; or 
whether the omission of such a service would not 
attach a stigma difficult to be removed. Our object 
rather is to show, that, whatever grace may have 


* 2 “we. 
THE DOCTRINE. — 245 


been manifested on the supposition of man’s wmpoten- 
cy, much more has been exercised on the supposition 
of his power. 

If tt be true that man has power, full and entire 
power, to be and to do,all that he ought, to love God 
supremely, to delight in him and to serve him with all 
his heart, then the case is a very different one from 
that just exhibited. Whatever may be the wretched- 
ness intowhich he may have fallen, and whatever 
its adaptation may be in itself to inspire compas- 
sion, the aspect of man’s character towards God has 
a tendency to repress such a feeling. Why should 
his Maker rescue him? Has he not been his Ma- 
ker’s enemy? With ample powers for his service, 
has he not wilfully devoted them to the world, and 
trampled alike upon the commands and the mercies, 
the glory and the terrors, of the Almighty ? What 
favours has he not abused! What dishonour has 
he not aimed to inflict! And all this when he had 
full power to do otherwise ; when God had set be- 
fore him the most moving truths, the consideration 
of which would have sweetly drawn him to love ; 
but he would not incline his ear, neither would he 
hearken. Shall God save sucha one? Shall not 
his soul be avenged on such a rebel as this? For 
such a wretch shall his arm “be stretched out, and 
his Son be slain? This is a miracle of grace in- 
deed. Love which prevails while crimes of the 
deepest dye provoke eternal wrath, and justice de- 
mands the execution of a righteous vengeance,— 
such love is free; it may be sovereign, and must be 


go Wy, THE TENDENCY OF 


glorious. Such love is worthy of the Eternal; and 
if all earth and heaven be called upon to shout its 
praise, the theme is infinitely higher than the song. 

The writer cannot believe it needful to carry the 
illustration any further. He will leave it to appeal 
to every pious mind, only expressing his heartfelt 
delight that the sentiments he holds do lead him to 
most admiring views of the grace that bringeth sal- 
vation. Oh!if he felt that there were any senti- 
ments which could sink him in deeper shame before 
the presence of his Maker, or inspire more elevated 
apprehensions of his Redeemer’s love, were it for 
this luxury alone, he would instantly embrace them. 
It is for this reason, in truth, that he binds his pre- 
sent sentiments to his heart: None humble him 
like these; none like these inspire him with adora- 
tion of his Lord. 

If a reader of the opposite persuasion should feel 
any force in the preceding argument, it may per- 


haps lead him to say—‘ But, after all, the great 


question is, Is the sentiment true; is it scriptural 2” 
No doubt, this is the great question; and he will 
have the goodness to recollect how fully it has been- 
treated in the former parts of this volume. It is not 
that we have examined our opinion in this indirect 
manner in order to avoid the direct application of 
scriptural tests: but having first applied them, we 
use this as a subsidiary means; and as the former 
justified us, so does the later. It should be recol- 
lected, too, that we arenow upon ground which our 
companions in argument have claimed as peculiar- 


Bo such ig Pat 
. “4 1a 


SARS 


THE DOCTRINE. 247 


ly their own, and from which, as their impregnable 
bulwark, they have loudly proclaimed our defeat. 
We wish no triumph, neither let thern practise any 
evasion ; but let it be fairly decided which sentiment 
has the advantage on the ground now occupied. 
Nothing is easier than for a man, who is determin- 
ed to maintain his opinion at all hazards, when 
baffled at one point, to run to another, and so lead 
an everlasting chase: but if there be any sincerity 
in the reference so often made to the tendency of 
the doctrine, we call upon our brethren either to 
show that it is not such as we have stated, or.to 
abandon, if not their opinion, yet their boast; and 
to content themselves with being that portion of the 
christian church who hold sentiments which justify 
man and annihilate the grace of God. 


CHAP. XIV. 


Whether the sentiment of man’s ability agrees with 
the actual exercises of his mind:—The Argument 
from Experience. 


Ir can scarcely fail to have occurred to our read- 
ers, that the subject before us is by no means one, 
either of abstract speculation, or of remote inquiry. 
It relates to matters which lie within our own 


¥ | ENG sales 


248 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


breasts ; to matters, therefore, respecting which our 
own consciousness should afford us the means of 
forming a ready and decisive judgment. One can 
scarcely withhold surprise, that on so home a topic 
there should have existed any diversity of opinion, 
or scope for argument; and if it does exist, it is 
highly natural and just to refer to every man’s con- 
sciousness of what passes within him for a decision 
of the question. Whatever may be the value of 
philosophical disquisitions, whatever may be the 
force even of divine testimony, they are of no fur- 
ther influence nor truth, than as they accord with 
the facts existing in the bosoms of men. The use 
and end of them is not to produce a fictitious man, 
but to discover the real one; not to form a picture, 
but to exhibit a light. Respecting the whole ques- 
tion in the discussion of which we have been en- 
gaged, we say most cheerfully, Let experience de- 
cide it. 
Much is it to be regretted that any circumstance 
should diminish the valueofthis appeal. Some read- 
ers, perhaps, under the influence of their own con- 
sciousness, may be ready to say that, on this ground, 
there cannot be two opinions, at least among those 
who are taught of God. The expectation is natu- 
ral; but the fact does not justify it. There are two 
opinions, even among those who are taught of God; 
unless, at least, the parties in this discussion pro- 
ceed to the extreme length of pronouncing each 
other not to be christians,—an anathema which, 
irom apgry and defeated disputants, is no way un- 


EXPERIENCE. 249 


common, but which we have no disposition to hurl 
at our brethren, and shall find it not difficult to bear, 
if it be only from them, and not from their Lord, 
But since those who have alike experienced divine 
teaching do not come to an instantaneous agree- 
ment upon this point, it is manifest that the appeal 
to experience cannot be made in the rapid and de- 
cisive manner which might have been anticipated. 
We shall need to advance with caution and dis- 
crimination. We shall, however, need no more 
than this. The ground ro the appeal to experience 
is not at all affected by the different views which 
may be taken of it. No doubt can be entertained, 
but that the inward exercises of all true christians! 
though greatly diversified are substantially the 
same; and that they are spoken of in dissimilar 
terial only because those terms are employed with 
more or less strictness and accuracy. We have 
see already that a lax and unobservant use of words 
is the origin of many of the doctrinal perplexities 
involved in the present discussion; and we need 
not be at all surprised to find the same cause operat- 
ing to disguise and distort the exercises of the 
heart. Let us only rectify these inadvertencies ; 
let us but ask candidly what certain phrases mean, 
and reduce them fairly to their correct import, awe 
then we shall hear distinetly what the testimony of 
experience really is. m 
Before we proceed to inquire of those to whom 
the Lord has been gracious, we wish to ask a few 
questions of the ungodly themselves. Of such 


* 


250 . THE ARGUMENT FROM 


among them as would affirm that they have ability 
for their duty, we have no need here to speak ; whe- 
ther correct or not, their testimony is at all events 
on our side. We refer now to those who think they 
cannot do as they ought; language which is very 
often heard from*some persons, especially when 
they have been induced to make any of those tran- 
sient and abortive efforts with which the lives of 
many abound. Supposing my reader to be cherish- 
ing such a sentiment, we use the freedom of ad- 
dressing him personally, and say ;—What do you 
mean when yon declare that you cannot love God 
or repent of sin, and serve him heartily ? What 
hinders you? The question perhaps may startle 
and perplex you; you may be disposed to reply to 
it by saying again that you cannot, and that you 
cannot tell why; but we must repeat our inquiry. 
If you cannot repent, something hinders you, and 
something which may be discovered, if you™will 
look closely, and speak honestly. What is it? 
Judge if we are not right in saying, that it is your 
wicked heart which will not let you repent. Your 
love of sin, of the world, and of self-indulgence, 
makes you deeply disrelish the consideration of re- 
ligious truths; it drives you from them, and leads 
your thoughts to temporal things when they ought 
to be fixed on eternal ones. You know there is no 
other hinderance. You could Jove and serve God, 
if your own heart would let you; but if this be the 
case, then you have power to do it; for, if you had 
not, you could not do it though your own heart 


EXPERIENCE. 251 


would let you, and though it were even bent upon 
it most intently. 

If you still say, But how can I help the state of 
my heart, which will not let me repent? we answer 
that you have the means of doing this, by the due 
consideration of religious truths.. Consider, and 
you will be wise. Your experience will confirm 
this representation. For we ask, Have you ever 
given to religious truths the serious, honest, con- 
tinued, and complete consideration, which you 
knew they deserved? If you have not, how can 
you say that such consideration would not have 
converted you? Again, have religious truths ever 
been seriously thought of by you, without producing 
some effect, and an effect exactly proportioned to 
the degree of consideration you may have given 
them? How else are we to account for the hours 
of anxiety, the bursts of sorrow, the occasional 
prayers and purposes of amendment, which your 
memory will readily recall? And if this be the 
case, as we are satisfied it is, it may fairly be reck- 
oned a decisive proof that due consideration would 
have converted you, and that, by this instrument, 
you have the means of regulating your own heart, 
Further; How have religious tricks at any time 
consciously failed to influence you, or lost the influ- 
ence which they were beginning to exert upon you? 
You know very well that it has been by inconside- 
ration. When they were brought before you, you 
took no pains to weigh them, but rather willingly 
forgot them, or perhaps indulged yourself 1 in some 


252 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


method of taking off their foree;and when they had 
made you in some measure serious, or unhappy, 
the impression was lost by forgetfulness, if not bya 
method more flagrantly criminal. We are not afraid. 
of your experience contradicting these statements: 
and if it do not, then we have its unequivical testi- 
mony to the sentiment, that every man possesses 
ability for his duty. You, at least, possess ability 
for yours. 

In harmony with the principle we are maintain- 
ing are those well attested instances in which con- 
version has more manifestly been induced by re- 
flection. We hear, for example, of a traveller at an 
inn engaging to reward a servant, if she will pro- 
mise to spend in prayer a quarter of an hour every 
day till his return ; and of a dying mother in India, 
who enjoined her son to spend half an hour every 
“morning in solitary reflection. In both these cases 
conversion resulted; and there are doubtless many 
similar ones. These are direct testimoniés to the 
adaptation and power of religious»truth to affect the 
heart, whenever it is duly regarded; and they author- 
ize the broad assertion, that it is impossible for any 
man to continue in sin, who steadily contemplates 
the motives which are adapted to win him from it ; 
he must disregard them, or he will infallibly repent. 

In perfect accordance with this view is the lan: 
guage of holy writ, in which we suppose every true 
christian will be ready to describe his own conver- 
sion: “ J thought on my ways, and turned my feet 
unto thy testimonies.” (Psalm cxix. 59.) Thought- 


’ 


EXPERIENCE. 253 


fulness is the first of all hopeful signs; and it will 
be fully admitted, we imagine, that conversion com~ 
mences and is carried on by the influence of clear, 
vivid, and powerful views of divine things ; that is, 
to say, by having the attention deeply engaged on 
them. Then what was seldom thought of becomes 
ever present, it cannot be forgotten; and the more 
intently it is dwelt upon, the deeper becomes the 
conviction of its importance, and the more decided 
its influence upon the heart. 

Let us now request any devout reader to examine 
how it is with him in his closet. On his entrance 
there it may be conceived that he finds a painful 
degree of worldly- mindedness and insensibility to 
divine things, much deadness of heart, and perhaps 
an entanglement of his affections with some sinful 
object. An hour spent in fervent exercises of se- 
cret piety awakens his heart, destroys the fascina- 
tion of sin, and brings him near to God. But what 


are the exercises which have produced this result2- 


They are greatly diversified, no doubt ; but they are 
in substance only two, meditation and prayer—one 
grand object of prayer also being that the heart may 
be enlarged and quickened in meditation. The 
great power of religious retirement lies in its adap- 
tation to set before us the glories of the world to 
come, to exhibit them distinctly, and to engage on 
them a full and solemn attention. To this point the 
labours of closet piety are mainly directed, and only 
so far-as it is attained is any benefit derived, Hence 
the value and importance of the perusal of the di- 
Q 


ee ee Oe eee 


254 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


vine word, of examination of the heart, of a review 
of the Lord’s dealings with us, and an observation 
of our ever varying circumstances; and hence, in 
truth, one great part of the value of prayer itself 
which, above all other exercises, brings us into 
close contact with eternal realities, or cuttingly 
convicts us of our thoughtlessness, while we bow 
in the very presence of those awful things by which 
our whole hearts ought to be absorbed. If there be 
any particular object to be attained, as for example, 
some special sin to be mortified, we look at it in 
the various lights in which its guilt, ingratitude, 
folly, and mischief appear most conspicuous ; when 
these fix our attention strongly, the resolution to 
mortify that sin is produced and confirmed, and not 
till then. It is the same in every other case; and 
it is wholly on this principle that we rest the truth 
of the general sentiment, which universal experi- 
ence confirms, that the vigour and growth of piety 
are always proportionate to the extent and liveli- 
ness of its secret exercises, or in other words, to the 
attention engaged by the objects to which piety 
itself relates. J 

It may perhaps be observed, that we have hither- 
to made no mention of those gracious aids of the 
Spirit which are exerted in conversion, and en- 
joyed in devotional retirement; and we may even 
be asked whether our plan leaves any room for 
them. Our answer is briefly this: We entertain 
the fullest conviction, that all holy emotions and 
enlargement of heart in meditation arise from the 


EXPERIENCE.- 55 


influence of the Holy Spirit, and are never enjoyed 
without him. We conceive, however, that his 
work is not to render meditation effectual to touch 
the heart, which it, would do without him, and 
must do, from the very constitution of man; but to 
induce meditation itself,—to fix our thoughts in- 
tently on divine things, which we never should do 
without him. Such is his office as described in holy 
writ, to “take of the things of Christ and show 
them unto us.” (John xvi. i4.), Such is the im- 
port of many of the petitions we address to him, 
that he will “turn away our eyes from beholding 
vanity,” and not suffer vain thoughts to lodge with- 
inus. (Psalm exix.37.) Such is his actual course 
of proceeding ; for whenever he does produce deep 
exercises of heart, it is by enlarged views of sacred 
objects. The use thus made of consideration by 
the Spirit himself, as the instrument for accomplish- 
ing all his purposes in the conversion, consolation 
and sanctification of men, is a manifest proof of its 
adequacy and certain efficacy ; since, as, on the one 
hand, it is impossible to conceive he would employ 
an instrument not fitted for its end, so, on the other, 
it is evident that the instrument does answer all the 
ends for which he employs:it.. Let but the same 
instrument be similatly employed, it matters not by 
what hand, and it will produce the same result. 
Hence may be seen, therefore, the relation and the 
consistency between the asserted ability of man and 
the aid of the Spirit. The Spirit does nothing more 
than lead us to due consideration; but we are able 


256 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


to give due consideration to any object without the 
Spirit; wherefore we have power, without the Spi- 
rit, to do that which we actually do only under his 
influence. The only instrument which the Spirit 
uses to accomplish the whole of his work, is one 
which we also have power to use; wherefore, also, 
we have power to accomplish the whole of that 
work; the only reason why we do not being our 
aversion to the use of the only instrument by which 
it can be effected. 

If it should be thought that the province thus as- 
signed to the blessed Spirit is too small and insig- 
nificant, let any christian observant of his own mind 
ask himself whether he can, in fact, ascribe to him 
any more. _We do not hesitate for a moment, to 
ascribe to this blessed Agent all our consolation, 
our sanctification, our heavenly. mindedness, and 
every other good thing; but we conceive that he 
produces them by means of the truth; and the real 
question is, whether he effects these gracious re- 
sults with or without this instrumentality? What- 
ever good work he carries on in the heart, is it not 
by the divine word, exhibited and applied for this 
purpose? Such is the tenor of our Saviour’s prayer ; 
“Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is 
truth.” (John xvii. 17;) and such, we believe, is 
the uniform testimony of christian experience.— 
Now, it the work of the Spirit is carried on by the 
word of truth, it must be carried on also by the un- 
derstanding and consideration of man, which form 
the only avenue by which the truth can reach or af- 


~ EXPERIENCE, 257 


fect the heart. Besides, when we say that the of- 
fice of the Spirit is tu lead to consideration, we say 
a thing by no means insignificant, but very much 
the reverse ; for, in relation to the formation of cha- 
racter and the determination of conduct, considera- 
tion is every thing. He who can fix my attention 
upon various objects according to his pleasure, has 
the key of.my inmost heart, and can mould it to his 
will, so far as those objects are adapted to exert any 
influence. Nor is it so small a matter as may be 
supposed. Let any man try his strength at this oc- 
cupation, and see how much he ean do towards fix- 
ing the attention of a person on subjects which he 
loathes, or to which he is even indifferent, and he 
will soon learn how little it is. Above all, let him 
try to engage the close and continued regard of a 
wicked man to the things of religion, and he will 
ere long acknowledge that it is no trifling task, that 
it altogether exceeds the resources of human power, 
and, little as it seems, is highly worthy of the Al- 
mighty and glorious Agent who condescends to per- 
form the deed. 

Here we may perhaps be met by the suggestion, 
that, among the first lessons of divine wisdom, is 
that of our own helplessness. Most cordially do 
we concur in this sentiment. It is among the ear- 
liest truths that the Spirit teaches; he who has not 
learned it, is wanting in the very elements of spi- 
ritual knowledge, and if there were any system 
with which this should be found to be uncongenial, 
it would be effectually refuted by this circumstance - 

Qa 2 


258 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


alone. We are not altogether strangers to the feel- 
ing of helplessness, and the deep anguish with 
which not only an awakened sinner, but a true 
christian, often acknowledges that he can do noth- 
ing, like a helpless captive, sold under the power of 
sin. As to holy exercises apart from the influence 


. of the Spirit, we daily feel them to be impossible; 


nor do we think that any persons use these terms 
either with more freeness, or with more force, than 
ourselves. But we have already seen that the use 
of these terms is by no means decisive of the ques- 
tion at issue. ‘Fhey have a two-fold use, and a 
two-fold meaning. It requires therefore to be asked, 
what we mean by them; and this is the more neces- 
sary; because only one of their significations is at 
all appropriate to the connexion in which they are 
employed. Some persons, when they use these ex- 
pressions, tell us they mean to acknowledge that 
they are without power to do what is good; others, 
and ourselves among them, by the same language 
mean, that their hearts have a fixed opposiiion to it. 
If we are complained of for using the language in 
this sense, we not only justify ourselves, but lay the 
same charge upon our brethren; for, in truth, we 
use the terms in their right sense, and in the only 
sense which they can rightly bear. We have al- 
ready established the principle, that, when these 
words are applied to a state of mind, they invaria- 
bly denote determination and not power; and we 
hold it to be certain that, in this connexion, they do 
refer to a state of mind, and nothing else; in the 


EXPERIENCE. 259 


ease before us, therefore, they can mean nothing 
but a fixed determination,and persons who use them 
to denote an imagined want of power are guilty, 
both of a flagrant perversion of language, and of en- 
deavouring to express what really does not exist. 
For, when the matter comes to be examined, it 
will be found that, with whatever force we may use 
the terms cannot and impossible, we do not really 
mean that we are destitute of power. Suppose me 
to say, in heartfelt bitterness, ‘“‘ Wretch that lam! 
How little do I mourn for sin, or love the Saviour! 
I cannot mourn, I cannot love. As soon may the 
Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots, 
as I, who have been long doing evil, learn to do 
well!’ What is the real case which I thus describe? 
It is the intensity of a certain state of mind and noth- 
ing more; a case, therefore, from which the idea of 
power, is altogether separate and remote. I mean 
only, that my feelings are desperately opposed to 
sorrow for sin and love to Christ. Neither is ita 
case which we are without the power, that is, the 
means (see page 111) of altering. Due considerae 


tion of the truths adapted to produce sorrow for sin » 


and love to Christ will produce them. Hence, ac- 
cordingly, if we really wish to possess these feel- 
ings, we betake ourselves to this very means; as 
though we should say, “ Come, my soul, look at 
those heart-rending iniquities which grieve thee so 
little, and lift up thine eyes to the glorious Redeem- 
er whom thou hast found it so hard to love! Wilt 
thou never melt ?” It isin the midst of such exer 
a3 


260 THE ARGUMENT FROM 


cises as these that the heart does melt 3 nor does it 
ever yield by any other means than the contempla- 
tion, in some method or other, of truths adapted to 
produce the effect. We may confidently appeal to 
every christian to say, whether the awakening and 
increase of devotional feeling is not always propor- 
tionate to the exercise of sacred meditation. 

To this it may be added, that, if it were strictly’ 
true that we had no power, we could attach to our- 
selves no blame in this respect. If we had been 
endeavouring to lift an immense weight, and, after 
our utmost exertion, had ascertained that we could 
not do it, we should be far from covering ourselves 
‘with reproaches, and exelaiming, “ Oh, guilty crea- 
ture that lam!” We should rather resign ourselves 
to the result, however calamitous, without any feel- 
ing of self-reproof. This, indeed, is precisely what 
some professors do with regard to experimental pie- 
ty. “Iam lukewarm,” say they ; ‘and too worldly- 
minded, I know: but I cannot help it; I can do noth- 
ing of myself; I must wait till the Lord pleases to 
visit me.” But what sort of religious experience 
are we to call this? To us it appears to be one of 
the most fearful signs of religious declension, and 
prevailing sin. At allevents, Paul’s experience was 
very different when he said, “ O wretched man that 
I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death!” And equally different be ours, and that of 
all our readers! Is it ever well with us, but when 
the evils of the heart are matter of deep affliction, 
and severe self-reproach ?—But if this feeling be 


EXPERIENCE, 261 


just, then it cannot be a case in which we are with- 
out power; for, in such a case, no just self-reproach 
could exist. 

Should any readers be disposed to question, whe- 
ther the existence of an evil disposition merely, 
without the want of power, can constitute such total 
helplessness and impossibility as we feel, he may 
notice two points. In the first place, no other cause 
of our helplessness exists, or can be shown, or con- 
ceived to exist; and those who maintain it never do, 
and never can explain themseives. In the next 
place, the influence exerted by adverse feeling is 
exactly proportioned to its strength. Only suppose 
a case, therefore, in which adverse feeling is of im- 
mense force, strong enough to lead a man to disre- 
gard all that might subdue it, and then the influence 
and result of it are as great and as certain as though 
his very power were destroyed. Exactly such is 
the state of our hearts towards God; and hence the 
feeling, so characteristic of christian experience, of 
total helplessness combined with extreme criminalily. 
This combination cannot be accounted for,—we 
may say it cannot exist, upon any principle but 
that which maintains both the depravity and the 
ability of man. 2 

Upon no ground haye we been more astonished 
at the resistance made to the admission of man’s 
ability for his duty, than this on which we have 
now touched. We suppose it is as truly character- 
istic of divine teaching, to learn that weare guilty, 
as to learn that we are helpless. -Isany man taught 


* 


262 THE ARGUMENT FROM : 


of God, who has not felt himself justly chargeable 
with sin, with actual conduct anda state of heart 
which are wrong, and for which he deserves severe 
blame and awful condemnation? We suppose we 
may safely set this down as one of the elementary 
lessons in the school of Christ. But if a man be- 
lieves this, we venture to affirm that he does not be- 
lieve himself destitute of power to have been a dif- 
ferent man; because, if he did, he could not feel 
himself justly blameable for sin. W hile we continue 
of sound mind, we never ean give up the dictate of 
common sense, that we are not blameworthy for 
what we could not help; and if we are really con- 
vinced that we could not help hating God and his 
authority, we never shall blame ourselves for doing 
so. How these two incompatible ideas get into the 
minds of some pious people, and dwell peaceably 
together, we cannot imagine, except by attributing 
to them a want of thought with which we are sor- 
ry any of them should be chargeable. If a person 
under first awakenings and deep convictions of sin, 
were told that he could not help it, he would not 
believe; at that time no man believes it: so far as 
the idea gains any practical influence upon the 
heart, it diminishes the sense of guilt, and carried 
fairly out, would destroy it entirely. We have 
conversed with varicus persons upon this point, and 
once found a professor, not wanting in shrewdness, 
who admitted that sin is no Sault at all; and howev- 
er others may strive to evade the formality of com- 
ing to so strange a conclusion, little doubt ean be 


SS oye. ee 
w ‘ 


EXPERIENCE. 263 


entertained, but that the prevalence of the senti- 
ment of human inability has exerted a wide and la- 
mentable influence, in banishing from the experi- 
ence of christians a deep sense of criminality. We 
think any close observer will allow that, among 
the professors of the present day, there is much less 
of this feeling, than there ought to be, and we un- 
hesitatingly regard it as the offspring of this mis- 
chievous falsehood. 

It has been conceived that a distinction between 
will and power is drawn by the apostle, where he 
says, “To will is present with me, but how to per- 
form that which is good I find not. The good that 
T would I do not, but the evil that I would not, that 
Ido.” (Rom. vii. 18,19.) For the illustration of 
this passage the reader is requested to consider the 
following remarks. 

Tn our account of the structure and operation of 
the mind, (page 80,) we have pointed out the differ- 
ence between the habitual prevailing state of the 
heart, and the transient excitements to which it is 
subject; the latter are affections or emotions, the 
former is the disposition. The distinct operation of 
these upon the conduct may be worthy of a mo- 
ment’s observation. If the emotions excited should 
be always in harmony with the existing disposition, 
then there would be no possibility of an action in 
any degree contrary to the disposition itself: but if 
there should arise emotions of a different tendency, 
then there might be, and without watchful effort 
there would be, an action not corresponding with 


264 THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE. 


the disposition. Human nature is so constituted 
that such emotions may arise. So it was with man 
in innocence, and so it is still. Hence results an 
especial and continual conflict in the renewed man; 
“the disposition being holy, but the heart being also 
liable to the excitement of unholy emotions, under 
the immediate influence of which sin may be actu- 
ally committed, and, in particular instances, the ac- 
complishment of the settled purpose of the mind 
may be frustrated. This is the state of things 
which we conceive the apostle to be illustrating in 
the latter part of the seventh chapter of the epistle 
tothe Romans. “I would do good,” says he; “to 
will is present with me; I delight in the law of God 
after the inward man.” (ver. 18, 19, 22.) These 
expressions represent his disposition, or the habitu- 
ally prevailing state of his heart, which dictated a 
holy and devoted conduct, and gave this main cha- 
racter to his life. He foand, however, “another 
Jaw in his members,” an inclination to sin, “ war- 
ring against the law of his mind,” (ver. 23;) and 
the emotions produced in consequence of this were 
sometimes strong enough to prevent the fulfilment 
of his holy and devoted purposes: hence he says, 
“the good that I would, I do not, and the evil that 
I would not, that I do: to will is present with me, 
but how to perform that which is good I find not,” 
(ver. 18, 19;) I am not watchful, and prompt, and 
vigorous enough, to maintain inviolate the great 
purpose of my soul. The whole passage appears 
to us to be remote from the question of power; it 
describes nothing more than a conflict of feeling. 


{ 
: 
: 


@BJECTIONS ANSWERED. 265 


CHAP. XV... 
Objections answered. 


Our argument has not been pursued thus far, 
without meeting with some of the topics commonly 
adduced in the form of objections to the sentiment 
of man’s ability. We trust satisfactory attention 
has been paid to these as they occurred ; but there 
are some others of considerable prominence, which 
it would be improper to overlook. 

1. It has been conceived that, if power in man to 
come to Christ be allowed, nothing will remain to 
prevent him from actually coming: and this would 
be contrary to the scriptures, which, at all events, 
declare that no man will come to Christ, except the 
Father draw him, : 

We believe, in the most unequivocal and decided 
manner, that no man eveg did or ever will come to 
Christ, unless drawn by the Father; and if the 
sentiment of man’s ability were inconsistent with 
this belief, we could hold it no longer. 

The objection, however, proceeds upon a princi- 
ple which may be shown to be fallacious. The ar- 
gument is this: “ Allow that a man can @ome to 
Christ, and then he will be sure to come; or at 
least you cannot be sure that he will not:” that is 
to say, all that a man can do, he will be sure to do; 


266 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


or, at least, there is nothing that he can do which you 
can be sure he will not do. This is manifestly false. 
Of the many things which a man can do, he may 
do some, and leave others undone; nay, he infalli- 
bly will do so; and which he will do, and which he 
will leave undone, may be infallibly known by any 
being who can search his heart,—which God can 
do, though we cannot. Take any action that you 
please, therefore, which a man can perform, still it 
does not follow that he will perform it; nay, I may 
be infallibly assured that he never will perform it. 

The fact is, that in orler to the performance of any 
action, two conditions are essentially necessary : the 
one is the possession of power, or means of perform- 
ing it, and the other is an inclination to do so. If 
it be to walk into the street, or to rise from my 
chair—I shall never do this if I have not power to 
do it: but neither shall I do it, although I have 
power, unless I have also inclination. Power is 
not of itself active; it is merely the means of act- 
ing, and it sleeps till inclination arouses it. My 
disinclination to rise frony my chair will as certainly 
prevent my doing so as if I wanted power, since it 
is one of the conditions essential to the action; so 
that if by any means you can ascertain how long 
my disinclination to do so will last,-you may _pre- 
dict, with an infallible certainty, that so long I shall 
not risé from my chair. | 

This familiar illustration we have taken for the 
purpose of setting the principle in a clear light; 
but the principle itself will be found to extend to all 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 267 


our actions, the greatest and most important not ex- 
cepted. Our coming to Christ depends upon two 
conditions ; first, our power to come ; secondly, our 
inclination to come. We certainly shall not come of 
we have not power: neither, if we have power, shall 
we come, if we have not inclination. If we have 
power, therefore, still it may be true that we shall 
never come to Christ, because we may never have 
an inclination to do so. 

The whole question, therefore, whether a man who 
has power to come to Christ, ever will come, resolves 
itself into this, What is the state of his inclination ? 
Is he inclined to come? Or is he indifferent, yet 
willing to consider why he should come? Or is he 
disinclined to come ; but only to such a degree, 
that he still is ready to listen and reflect 2 Or is 
his disinelination so strong as to become the habi- 
tual and prevailing state of his heart, and to induce 
a determined disregard of all that might influence 
him? If the state of a man’s mind be such as is 
described in the earlier of these questions, then we 
may perchance see the wonder of one coming to 
Christ of himself: but if it be truly represented by 
the last of them, it is plain that he never will come 
of himself, his disinclination leading to the aban- 
donment of the only means by which he might be 
brought to such a result. 

We have only to ask, then, whether the state of a 
man’s mind can be known in this respect ; and of so, 
what tt is declared tobe. We have all of us means 
of estimating the inclinations of others and our own 


268 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


to some extent, but not so far as to speak certainly 
of what will or will not be done, either by others or 
ourselves. There is one Being, however, though 
only one, to whom all hearts are open, and all 
thoughts are known; and to him it is fully known 
whether any man will of himself come to Christ. 
He has given us the advantage of his knowledge 
in his holy word, which teaches us that no man 
ever will so come. The heart he declares to be 
desperately wicked ;” the thought and imagina- 
tion of it ‘‘ only evil continually ;” adding, that it 
is “enmity against God, and is not subject to the 
law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Jer. xvii. 9 ; 
Gen. vi. 5; Rom. viii. 7.) We might quote much 
to this effect; but the sense is, that God, who knows 
the end from the beginning, has forewarned us that 
the evil disposition of a sinner will, in every case, in- 
duce him to reject the Saviour. 

What more does the objector want, to satisfy him 
of this melancholy truth, and to relieve him of his 
fears that some poor sinner may come to Christ of 
himself? Why should he deem it necessary to add to 
this wnpediment another; consisting in the want of 
POWER? One would be ready to imagine that he 
does not believe the divine testimony concerning 
the wickedness of the heart, that he cannet think 
any man will be so mad, or so wicked, as to keep 
aloof from Christ 7f he has power to come to him ; 
that he finds a difficulty to entertain so dreadful an 
opinion of another, or of himself. There is proba- 
bly more of this scepticism at the bottom of the ef- 


' 
f 
: 
: 
; 
: 
: 


: 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 269 


forts made to maintain the inability of man than 
its advocates are aware of. But let them be aware 
of it; and if this be their real feeling, let them 
manfully avow it. If they will fairly place them- 
selves among the advocates of human goodness, if 
they will maintain that there are such remnants of 
right feeling in a corrupt heart, that a sinner really 
would of himself turn to Christ, if a want of power 
were not superadded to prevent him, then we shall 
know where they are, and in what company to find 
them. We donot believe, however, that they will 
do this ; but really we have all of us need to ac- 
quire more profound and humbling views of the 
“nest of serpents’? which sin has generated in 
every man’s bosom. 

2. Akin to this objection is another, namely, 
That if a man is allowed to possess power to be what 
he ought to be, there is no ground for maintaining 
the necessity of the Spirit. 

We should feel the foree of this objection, if 
power were the only condition necessary to the perform- 
ance of an action; but if there be any other condi- 
tion necessary also, the necessity of the Spirit’s in- 
fluence may surely be maintained in reference {to 


that, though not in reference to power. It has just 


been shown that a second condition zs necessary to 
the performance of every action, namely, inclind- 
tion ; and whether the influence of the Spirit is or 
is not necessary to produce such an inclination 
must depend upon the state of the mind itself. Jf, 
as we have maintained, the state of man’s heart be 


270. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


such, that an inclination to turn to Christ will never 
arise in it, then the absolute necessity of the Spirit's 
influence may be intelligibly and justly affirmed. 
Those who do not coincide in this conclusion must 
be supposed to doubt, either that inclination is a 
condition necessary to action, or that the inclina- 
tion of man is hopelessly averse from God ; and 
they are welcome to either alternative, 

Whether that kind of necessity for the influence 
of the Holy Spirit which arises from the disinclina- 
tion of the sinner be that which the scriptures ex- 
hibit, is a question, which has elsewhere been con- 
sidered. We will here only repeat our conviction 
that this is the fact. They do not represent any 
impediment as obstructing a sinner’s conversion but 
his unwillingness ; they cannot, therefore, recog- 
nize any other cause as originating the necessity of 
the Spirit’s work. 

3. A third objection to the doctrine of human 
ability has been raised on the ground that it makes 
‘no proper allowance for the effect of the fall. No 
doubt, it is said, man in innocence had power to love 
God ; but if the fall did not deprive him of this 
power, what has he suffered by it? Is he not in as 
S00d a condition as before 2 

Nothing can be more certain than that a most se- 
rious and melancholy injury was inflicted upon man 
by the sin and fall of our first parents ; and it would 
be a valid objection against any sentiment that it 
made no proper allowance for it. But at the same 
time it is manifest _that the fall did not annihilate | 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Q7) 


man ; nor did it destroy ail his powers, or means 
| of action and enjoyment. Still ha retains his 
senses ; still is he an intelligent and rational crea- 
ture. It is plainly necessary, therefore, to ascertain 
correctly the nature and extent of the injury thus 
arising: and by no means allowable to conclude, 
that because a great mischief has been suffered, 
that mischief necessarily comprehends the loss of 
power to do well. 

What, then, was the nature of the injury resulting 
to man from the fall 2 

It may have been one of two kinds, according 
to the two-fold aspect in which man himself is to 
be regarded. Man may be considered, first, as a 
creature possessing certain power's, or means of ac« 
tion ; or, secondly, as possessing a disposition to 
employ those powers in certain methods, good or 
evil. Now the fall may have affected man, either 
in regard to his disposition, or in regard to his 
powers. 

The objection alleges that the injury has fallen 
upon his powers : to which we demur for the follow- 
ing reasons, 

(1.) The powers of man are not injured in fact. 
Let it only be recollected what they are; the power 
of perceiving, of feeling, of determining, of attend- 
ing, of judging concerning good and evil ;—these 
are the powers of man, as a moral agent, the pow- 
ers which capacitate him to do good or evil. Which 
of these has he lost2 ‘Manifestly none of them. 
If any reader doubts whether these are all the 

R 


272 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


powers necessary to moral action, we must refer 
him to page 98, where this subject is fully treated. 
We maintain them to be so; and, if they are, the 
fall has neither destroyed nor aie any one of 
the powers of man. 

We know very well that these powers “ not, 
siuce the fall, act as they did before; but ¢his proves 
no change in themselves. Their action ts aliogether 
affected by the disposition of their possessor; and to 
an evil disnosition their actual iadolence or mis- 
employment is to be referred. If it should be said 
that disposition must then be necessary to power, 
Wwe must again refer to first principles, page 134, 
where it has been shown that disposition is nut ne- 
cessary to power, but is totally and essentially dis- 
tinct. 

(2.) If any of the powers of man had been injured, 
tt would have reduced him in the scale of creatures, 
which is nowhere alleged to be the case. 

The different powers, or means of action, pos- 
sessed by various creatures, constitute the precise 
circumstanee by which one is distinguished from 
another, and by which the various orders are form- 
ed. Creatures possessing means of action in the 
smallest degree are the lowest in the scale, and 
every one rises, in proportion as they become more 
ample. It is the possession of powers superior to 
any other creature on earth, tffat places man, as a 
creature, at the head of them all; and he, like the 
rest, must rise or sink in thé scale of creation, just 
as his powers may be diminished or increased. To 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 273 


say, therefore, that man has less power than he once 
had, is to say that his rank asa creature is lcwcred ; 
that his place in creation is altered; that he is 
somewhat nearer than he once was to the brutes 
that perish. But do the scriptures ever intimate 
this? Most certainly not. .They declare him to 
have fallen, no! as a crea‘ure, but as a holy creature; 
not in na‘ure, but in characler; not in power, but in 
disposition. ‘The place which he has lost is not in 
the scale of creation, but in that of righteousness ; 
his fall is not from human to brute, but from divine 
to diabolical. : 

(3.) The effect of the fall upon man as a moral 
agent is uniformly represented as sinful, which a 
want of power is not. 

Ail the epithets applied to man as fallen are ex- 
pressive of God’s disapprolation.- He is said to be 
corrupt, abominable, &c.; so that, whatever the ef- 
fect of the fall may have been, its sinfulness is un- 


questionable. The want of power, however, cannot 


have the character of sin. Power is the means of 
action ; to possess which is no virtue, to be desti« 
tute of which is no crime. They may be attained 
in some cases by methods which were virtuous, 
and in others they may be lust by methods which 
were criminal: but even in such cases the virtue or 
the fault characterizes, not the state resulting, but 
only the steps leading to it. I am right or wrong 
only as Tuse the power Ihave. The possession of 
Jess power than J had, or than my parents had, may 
be a calamity to me, but it cannot bea sin; but the 


274 CBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


effect of the fall, as now viewed, is sinful ; it ean- 
not consist, therefore, in the loss of power. 

(4.) It may be added, that diversities of power 
require a corresponding diversity of treatment; while 
God treats man before the fall and after it precisely 
on the same principles. : 

That beings who possess different powers, or means 
of action, ought nol to be treated alike, but with a 
corresponding difference, seems an obvious dictate 
of reason and justice. The methods by which you 
endeavor to induce action should clearly be adapted 
to the powers on which you work; and if there 
were any difference in power between man before 
the fall, and man after it, there should have been an 
equal difference in the methods of the divine con- 
duct. But is there any such difference? Manifestly 
not. ‘The circumstances are different, the motives 
presented are different; but the principle of treat- 
ment is the same. Innocent man was dealt with in 
a way of rational motive and persuasion; and with 
fallen man it is the same. To Adam God said, in 
substance, Obey my will for certain reasons: and he 
says the same to us. He left Adam to the result of 
his consideration, and he leaves us to the result of 
_ours. The duties enjoined onus respectively differ, 
and the reasons assigned for them, but the method 
of treatmentis perfectly identical. It is persuasion; 
itis the presentation of motive; it is an appeal to 
the understanding and the heart. Would there have 
been an identity of treatment, if there were a diversity 


of power? 


a a 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 275 


We need not be reminded that there isa difference 
in his treatment of fallen man, in relation to the 
promise and the actual influence of his Spirit. We 
have already shown our reasons for believing that 
the gift of the Spirit is not universal, nor in any way 
necessary tothe just qnd full responsibility of man. 
-God holds those accountable for their conduct to 
_whom he does not give the Spirit; with these, there- 
fore, his method of treatment is precisely the same 
as that which he adopted with innocent man; and 
_ We draw the inference that their power is the same. 
(5.) We may observe, finally, that a loss or dim- 
inulion of power is no where ascribed to the fall. 

| Every expression seemingly indicative of a want 
of power has, upon a just interpretation, as we 
have elsewhere shown at large, a different meaning. 

We shall now perhaps be asked, What effect did 
the fall produce? Our answer is, A change in the 
disposition of “man. Before it he was a friend to 
God, after it he was an enemy ; before it his dispo- 
sition was holy -and heavenly; after it, it was 
earthly and corrupt. 

That the fall did produce this effect both scripture 
and observation yield abundant proof, and it pro- 
bably will not be disputed by our brethren in this 
argument. The question rather is, whether a due 
and sufficient effectis thus assigned toit. Wemain- 
tain the affirmative as follows :— 

Ist. By the agreement of the sentiment with mat- 
ter of fact: itbeing an obvious fact, that the powers 
of man, as aratioval and moral agent, are not des- 

R2 


276 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


troyed, while his diene is become desperately 
wicked. 

2dly. By the impossibility, as already shewn, of. 
referring the effect of the fall to the power of man. 
And if it did not touch his power, it could alight 
on nothing else but his disposition ; the oaly views 
in which man can bezregarded being these two,— 
either as a creature possessing power, or as a moral 
agent exercising disposition. 1 | 

3dly. By the adequacy of the sentiment to ac- 
count for all the curcumstances of the case. * 

(1.) Take the fact, for example, that men are 
universally wicked, without an exception in any 
age, or in any clime; a wicked disposition of great 
intensity is quite adequate to. explain it. Or take 
this, that, though often and loudiy called, no man 
repents, or of himself will repent; and such an evil 
disposition will account for it with equal ease. - Nor 
is there any case or aspect of hutfan guilt which 
‘may not be resolved on this supposition, quite as 
satisfactorily as by imagining a want oj power, 
Diiferent as power and disposition are in themselves 
they agree in this, that they are alike necessary to 
action; and let which may be wanting, the action is 
with equal certainty prevented. 

[2.] Look again at the fact, that God ts angry 
with man in the state into which he has fallen, and 
calls it sin, which, upon the supposition of its being 
a want of power, is quite unintelligible: considering 
it as the indulgence of an evil disposition, the matter 
is perfectly plain. We have shown that disposi- 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 277 


tion is a voluntary thing, and, in all cases, just mat- 
ter of praise or blame; if, therefore, a wrong state 
of teeling is that which has resulted from the fall, 
the displeasure of God may be expressed against it 
with the strictest justice. 

[3.] Reflect on the very strong terms in which the 
wickedness of hnman nature is described; the utter 
extinction of good in the heart, and the overwhelm- 
ing force of evil: if needs only an evil disposition 
of sufficient strength to realize it all. There isno 
goodness in power; and therefore loss of power 
cannot be necessary to loss of goodness. Goodness 
lies wholly and exclusively in disposition ; so that 
if the disposition is become wholly evil, every 
spark of goodness is fled. 

[4.] Or consider, finally, the dispensation of God 
towards man; how, though man has fallen, he still 
reasons, and pleads, and endeavors to persuade; all 
which, upon the supposition of the want of power, 
cannot be deemed lese than absurd; but zf an evil 
disposition be that which diston guishes fallen from 
innocent man, every thing is plain. While the ra- 
tional powers of man remain, persuasion is an ap- 
propriate and sufficient means of dealing with him ; 
whether it be successful or not, it has in it no absur- 
dity, no unsuitableness. It is as fit for us as it was 
for Adam, and lays a foundation of unquestionable 
justice for responsibility and punishment, propor- 
tionate to the motives employed. 

It appears tous, therefore, fully sufficient to main- 
tain that the effect of the fall was to change the 

R3 


278 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


disposition of man, and not to destroy his power. 
The righteousness of his disposition we hold to be 
totally destroyed; his power, as a moral agent, to 
be altogether unimpaired. 

4. It has sometimes been asked, ‘ How is the 
assertion that man has power to do good reconcile-_ 
able with the doctrine of his total depravity ?” ) 

The doctrine of the total depravity of man we do — 
most unequivocally maintain; and in order to see : 
how it is reconcileable with his ability to do well, — 
it is only needful to observe wherein the true na-— 
ture of depravity consists. We Suppose we may 
take it for granted that depravity is evil, or blame- 
worthy. Now we have elsewhere stated (page 120) 
that good and evil in man have their existence only 
in the heart, or in the state of the feelings. Ifa 
man’s feelings be right, every thing will be right, 
because the feelings regulate every thing; and if | 
any thing in his conduct be Wrong, it must, on the — 
same principle, spring from something wrong in his — 
feelings. There is neither good nor evil in any part — 
of man but his heart, of the state of which all his 
actions are but the expression: and if this be the | 
case, depravity is a word which can have reference _ 
to the state of the heart alone, inasmuch as it re-_ 
fers tosomething whichis evil. It has no reference, — 
therefore to the power of man, in any view of it, 
but solely to his disposition ; and whatever may be 
asserted respecting the depravity of man, his power 
is left wholly out of the question. He may be, and 
we maintain that he is, totally depraved: and yet, 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 279 


as we also maintain, his power may be altogether 
perfect and entire. What we mean by saying that 
aman is totally depraved, is, that he has a thoroughly 
wrong disposition: which, it is plain, may consist 
with the most ample and eicelleut powers. If de- 
pravity means more than this, the case of course 
will be altered; but we believe we have here used 
the word in its correct and scriptural signification. 


CHAP. XVI. 


Objections answered. 


5. It has been considered as a weighty objection 
to the sentiment of man’s ability, that nothing is 
gained by it. The result, it is said, is the same, 
No more persons are saved; and men, after all, will 
not repent. 

We cannot sufficiently wonder at this objection. 
As though it were to be considered, in the investi- 
gation of asentiment, whether any thing would be 
gained by it! Weare to suppose that an opinion 
which rests upon slight evidence, or upon none at 
all, should be readily received, if it seemed likely 
to yield some advantage; while another, though 
supported by the strongest evidence, if it have not 
such a recommendation, is to berejected. We have 
been used to think the great question to be, What 


280 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


ts the truth? and that it is imperative, in all cases, 
to do homage to the majesty of truth, by submittin 

to her authority. Whether, in the exhibition w 
may think proper to give of truth, we shall give ta 
any topic a more or less prominent place, may wel 
depend upon our view of its profitableness ; but 
surely nothing that is true can rightly be rejected 
or denied. To judge every thing untrue which i 
of no apparent benefit, would be to supercede the 
use of evidence entirely : and the extensive appli- 
eation of such a rule would assign to the class o 
falsehoods a large portion of hitherto acknowledge 
truths. We deem it not too much, therefore, to in- 
sist upon an examination of the question according 
to its evidence, irrespective of its issues, We ask, 
4sit true? and shall justly consider every man, who 
passes from the question by saylag, What do you 
gain by it? as unable or unwilling to meet the 
proof. 
» It can scarcely be Jess than presumptuous, how- 
ever, to assume that a sentiment possesses no useful 
tendency, because it is not apparent to us. We may 
be too blind, or too mueh prejudiced, to observe, or 
to appreciate it. It is much more reasonable to 
conclude, that, if it be true, it must be useful, on 
the general principle that whatever is true is so, if 
it have any influence at all; and this might be 
maintained more especially in religion, and with re- 
spect to the truth of God. If the sentiment in 
question be true, it is @ part of the truth of God ; 
a truth which he has revealed, and one which 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 281 


stands connected with his methods of administra- 


tion, and the eternal interests of mankind. Can 
any such truth be unimportant, or otherwise than of 


a beneficial tendency-? And if we do not see its ad- 


vantage, should not this lead us rather to suspeet 


our own ignorance, than to impute folly to our Ma- 
ker? 


In fact, the objection itself proceeds upon a 


strangely contracted view of the divine dispensa- 


tions. “The result isthe same,” says the objec- 


tor, “upon your scheme, as on ours.” Undoubtedly. 


Did any body ever think of producing a change in 


results? Will not the result be the same on every 


scheme of religious opinion? Do the various and 
conflicting thoughts of men affect the fulfilment of 


the designs of God? If it were to make us indif- 
ferent to any form of rel'gious belief, that the result 
would not be altered by it, this should equally make 


us indifferent to all its forms; for by not one of 
them, false or true, will such an effect be produced. 


Though truth were banished from the world, God 


would work his sovereign pleasure. He that sets 
light by one opinion because no more souls will be 
saved by it, may for the same reason set light by 
every other; let bim hold which he will, just the 
same number of sinners will be saved. 

The importance of religious opinions lies in this, 
that they exhibit the character of God and man ; 
and the reason why it is important that religious 
opinions should be correct, is, that it is important 
for these topics to be exhibited in their true light. 


282 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


The aspect in which the character of God is exhi- | 
bited is important to his honour in the world, and to — 
the influence which it is adapted to produce upon — 
mankind ; while an accurate knowledge of our own 
character is obviously essential to the very elements 
of real wisdom. The test, therefore, to which the 
Sentiment in question is justly liable, is this: Does 
il represent the ways of God, and the character of » 
man, ina light juslly influential? If it does, it has — 
all the beneficial tendency which any sentiment can 
have. 5 
That the assertion of man’s ability for right ac- 
tion does lead to representations of God which are ~ 
highly honourable to him, needs no proof. It — 
throws*‘a flood of light on the justice of his com- 
mands, and the reasonableness of his expectations, 
It establishes beyond controversy the criminality 
and desperate wickedness of man, and sheds a glo- 
rious lustre on the goodness, forbearance, and re- 
deeming love of the Almighty. It shows that all 
his ways are both equitable and kind, and that the 
whole blame of sin and ruin lies with the trans- 
gressor himself. Are these matters of no impor- — 
tance? Can they be deemed so by any friend of 
God? What friend of God is he, who is not de- 
lighted by every augmentation of light which can 
be thrown upon his ways? Or are they unimpor- 
tant in relation to man? Is it nothing to gain an ~ 
answer to some of the many cayils by which sin- — 
ners repel or evade the call to repentance? Is it 
nothing to fix upon their consciences a conviction — 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 283 


of guilt, and to leave them consciously without ex- 
—cuse ? 

But, after all, if you do this, says the objector, 
none of them will any more repent, tll the Spirit 
change their hearts. True, undoubtedly : but, if 
you are silent on this ground, let every other topic 
of address be abandoned also. Why do you preach 
atall? Not one will be converted by that, unless 
grace change the heart. But, if we address sin- 
ners at all in a way adapted to affect them, in ex- 
pectation of God’s blessing, every topic adapted to 
such an end should be adduced, and the greatest 
value attached to those modes oi address which are 
best adapted to the design. On these the greater 
blessing may be expected. 

It seems fo have been thought by some persons, 
that the adaptation of the gosjel to the conversion of 
sinners is arbitrary, a mere matter of divine appoint- 
ment; that there is no fiiness in the gospel itself to 
accomplish the end, but that it does so only because 
God has been pleased to determine that it should ; 
and that, if he had pleased, he might as well have 
ordained that conversion should have resulted from 
the teaching of geography, or the lowing of oxene 
Such an idea is fully implied in the manner in 
which they justify the preaching of the gospel to 
those who have no power to repent; and, on the 
same ground, they feel litle inducement to adopt a 
mode of address because of its adaptation to con- 
vince or impress the mind. Nothing cah be more 
derogatory to divine wisdom, or inconsistent with ob- 


2): ee OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


vious fact. When the means which God has ap- 
pointed for conversion are examined, they appear_ 
directly and admirably fitted to the design. Intend-— 
ed to operate upon an intelligent and rational crea-_ 


ture, whose feelings are to be reached through his 


understanding, every word of scripture appeals to 
the understanding, and the whole exhibits a collec-— 
tion of motives, adapted to the nature of man with — 
infinite skill, and possessing an unmeasurable ahd — 


almost overwhelming power. ~ Is it imaginable 
that an apparatus like this would have been em- 


ployed by accident? Besides, the pursuit of an- 


end by suitable means, is one of the first dictates © 
even of ordinary wisdom. It is that which God _ 
has made every creature to do; and creatures, in — 


their excellencies, are the images of Himself. He 


has so constituted us as to deride even the attempt _ 


to accomplish an object by means known to be un- 
suitable. And is it conceivable, that, after putting 


this impress on the whole creation, and with a_ 


boundless store of means at his command, he 
should, in the most glorious of all his works, and 
one which he summons all intelligent beings to be- 


‘hold, violate his own law, and exhibit himself in a 
light which it would be impossible to.admire, and — 


almost impossible not to deride 2 


The manner in which the influences of the blessed © 
Spirit are imparted, fully accords with the view we — 


are taking. Much of sovereignty, doubtless, may 


be ohserved in it; but, at the same time, much of 


wisdom. The kind of preaching which has been 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, _ 285 


made most useful, has been that which was adapted 
to be most useful; that, namely, which has been 
most scriptural in sentiment, most solemn in man- 
ner, most earnest and affectionate in spirit. We 
may hence conclude that God chooses to work by 
adapted means: and that, where the means are best 
adapted, he will give the largest success. 

And if this be the case, we gain much by every 
approach to accuracy of sentiment. It is not only 
that our representations are more fitted to be useful, 
they are also more secure of a blessing. We are 
honouring God, by speaking what he has bidden us; 
and we may hope to be honoured by him, in the re- 
ception of our message. In this respect there is a 
high bounty attached to the rectification of our 
mistakes, since every improvement in handling the 
word of truth renders it more probable that God 
may employ us for good. 

6. The principle we have maintained has been 
conceived to throw perplexity on the important doc- 
trine of regeneration. Regeneration, it is said, is 
the commencement of spiritual life ; and, as the 
existence of spiritual life must precede the perfor- 
mance of spiritual actions, an unregenerate person 
cannot have power to Bator them. 

This is a very instructive instance of the facility 
with which mistakes may be committed, in the use 
of the metaphorical language with which the scrip- 
tures abound. 1t will scarcely be doubted, we sup- 
pose, that the term regeneration, as applied to the 
operation of the Spirit of God upon the soul of 


286 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


man, is a metaphor. By all means let us have its 
true and full import, but x0 more. In order to as- 
certain this, regard shonid be had to the series of 
metaphorical representations of which it forms a 
part. By nature sinners are said to be dead ; under 


the influence of the Spirit of God, they are said to” 


be alive; and that exercise of his power, by which 
this change from metaphorical death to metaphori- 
eal life is produced, is appropriately called regene- 
ration. But, dropping the metaphors, what is the 
aciual matter which they are employed to illus- 
trate? Itis neither more nor less than the state of 
@ sinner’s mind ; but itis the state of his mind in 
a particular respect. ‘The whole series of expres- 
sions just quoted refer not to its active, but to its 
quiescent state; that is to say, they do not denote 
what it is in action, but what it is at rest. They 
show what it is before it acts, and as it is prepared, 
or predisposed to act. This distinction is clearly 
founded in fact. It is maniiest that there must be 


a period, when, in reference to aay given subject, - 


no actual feeling exists, as in infancy, or in cases 
of previous ignorance; yet, while no feeling actu- 
ally exists, there may also be a predisposition to 
some specific state of feeling on this very subject, 
in accordance with -which the feelings, when awak- 
ened, will naturally be. So, for example, if I have 
unconsciously inflicted an injury, while Lam igno- 
rant of it, I have no feeling concerning it; when I 
come to the knowledge of it, 1 may feel more or 
less sorry, or perhaps not sorry at all ; but what de- 


: 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 287 


x 


termines the nature and degree of these feelings ? 
Obviously, in the first instance, the state of mind 
previously existing; as the enmity or love I might 
bear towards the particular person injured, or the 
tenderness or unconcern I might cherish respecting 


-the welfare of others in general. This quiescent 


state of the heart is of great importance, as power- 
fully predisposing to specific courses of feeling and 
action. It may tend to good or evil; but when in- 
voluntary, it attaches neither praise nor blame, as 
is pre-eminently the case with infants, in whom a 
cause predisposing to sinful action must be held to 
exist, since those who live invariably do evil, but to 
whom, while yet incapable of any moral action, it 
seems impossible to ascribe sin. ‘This quiescent 
state of the heart differs both from disposition and 
inclination, which are states of active feeling (page 
109); and no better wordfor it occurs tous than the 
bias of the neart. Man, in innocence, had a bias 
towards holiness; since the fall he has a bias 
towards sin, and this bias tends to produce sinful 
action, which, nevertheless, the conscience is 
adapted and able to prevent, though it does not. 
Now it is this quiescent state, or bias of the heart, 
to which we conceive the terms death life, and re- 
generation to refer. Death and life do not denote 
action of any kind, but states, out of which peculiar- 
and appropriate actions arise; and regeneration is 
the act by which the former state is destroyed and 
the latter induced. The bias of a man’s heart to- 
wards sin is called death; a bias towards holiness is 


4 


288 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


called Jife; the destruction of the bias towards sin, 
and the production of a bias towards holiness, is- 
the precise act of the Spirit, which is called regen- 
eration, or giving life to the dead. Its connexion 
with conversion is easily illustrated. While un- 
converted, this bias towards sin induces a man to 
disregard every thing which tends to make him 
uneasy in a sinful life, and hence his fearful and 
criminal perseverance in it; but, when this bias is 
removed, and a bias towards holiness imparted, 
then he begins to attend to the truths hitherto neg- 
lected, and in proportion as he attends to them, 
they also work upon him, and produce all the varied 
phenomena and results of actual conversion to God. 
We may take this opportunity of expressing our 
Opinion, in opposition to a recent respectable wri- 
ter,* that the operation of the Holy Spirit in regen- 
eration is direct, and not by means of the truth; and 
that it is not designed to accomplish something for 
which the word was never fitted, but, on the contra- 
ry, that it is intended to produce the very result 
which, if due consideration were given, the word 
would produce without it. May we be allowed to 
add our conviction, that an observation of the dis- 
tinction upon which we have here dwelt would fa- 
cilitate, if it would not even close, the long-perplex- 
ed inquiry respecting the identity and priority of re- 
generation and conversion 2 

Whether this idea of regeneration may satisfy 


—_—— ee 


*Mr. Orme: Five Discourses, pp. 76—80, and Note T. 


. 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 289 


our companions in this argument, We know not, nor 
can we here enter into a discussion of it; it is, We 
hope, intelligible to our readers, and it is in our own 
view scriptural and satisfactory. It entirely re- 
moves the imaginary difficulty before us. For if 
regeneration have respect exclusively to the state of 
mind in man, it can have no respect whatever to his 
power, which, as we have seen, is altogether distinct 
from his state of mind, and unaffected by it; so that 
whether regenerate or unregenerate, he is the same 
in power, though he differs widely in moral bias. 
It is quite true that regeneration must, in all cases, 
precede holy action, because the state of the sinner’s 
mind, which is so desperately wicked as otherwise 
to prevent it, must be changed ; but this proves only 
that an unregenerate man has no disposition to per- 
form holy actions, and leaves him in full possession 
of the power. 

Before dismissing this objection, we may ob- 
serve that it rests upon the extreme ground of de- 
nying the obligation of unregenerate men alto- 
gether. If carried out, it leads to an abandonment 
of all the commands and exhortations which God 

has addressed to men as such, that is, to men unre- 
generate. This alone might induce any reasonable 
man to suspect it, and will instantly satisfy many of 
our readers of its fallacy. 

7. It has been said that ungodly men in general 
entertain the opinion of their ability to do their duty, 
and that the fondness with which they cling to this 
notion demonstrates its fallacy. 

pe 


290 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. * 


This is a strange argument in its principle. Eve- 
ry idea which wicked men universally entertain, it 
appears, must for that reason be false. Yet asense 
of obligation and duty, of right and wrong, and other 
dictates of conscience, are found more or less dis- 
tinctly,in wicked men, at least as generally as the 
notion of their ability, and by this process all these 
would be demonstrated to be false. The scriptures 
on the contrary, clearly intimate that the conscien- 
ces of fallen men retain some remnants of truth, 
which constitute the law written in their hearts 
and make them “a law unto themselves,” Romans 
ii. 14, 15; and the conviction of their ability for duty 
may, for aught that yet appears to the contrary, be 
one of these lingering principles of rectitude. 

The argument is equally delusive in its details. 
If ungodly men at large do think that they have 
ability to do well, zt is by no means an opinion to 
which they cling withany fondness. On the contrary, 
they are for the most part extremely glad to rid 
themselves of it, and they eagerly avail themselves 
of every expedient by which its force may be di- 
minished. Hence the prevalence of the doctrine of 
fatalism among the heathen nations, and the philo- 
sophical, or more thinking portion, of enlightened 
countries; hence the perpetual tendency, even in 
the commonest minds, to make endless excuses for 
misconduct, directed to the point that they could 
not help it; and hence the readiness with which the 
same sentiment has been imbibed from the preach- 
ers of the divine word, until, though still contended 


ee eS eee 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 291 


- 


with by an honest conscience, it has spread over 
the whole surface of a professedly christian land. 
We have little doubt, that, in defiance of inward re- 
monstrances, multitudes do believe that they can 
do nothing, that they are very glad to believe it, 
that many more would believe it if they could, and 
that even those who do not believe it think there 
must be some truth in it, since it is so often and so 
prominently made part of pulpit instruction ; but it 
is far worse than all this, that the expression of 
such a sentiment by the ministers of the gospel 
should fall in with the depraved wishes of their 
hearers, and either, on one hand, tend to silence 
their inward monitor, and release them from the 
last restraint placed on their vicious courses by their 
Creator, or, on the other, violate the dictates of con- 
science, shock the common sense of mankind, and 
give occasion to those whom our ministry should 
convince and persuade, to turn the whole into ridi- 
cule and contempt. This we know to be the effect 
of such preaching upon ungodly men; and we have 
felt a more pungent affliction than we have power 
to express, that the wiles of Satan should thus 
have converted men, by whose. instrumentality his 
kingdom should have been shaken to its fouudations, 
into agents for propagating and perpetuating the 
delusions in which its main stability consists. 

To us it is a convincing proof that the sentiment 
which affirms man’s inability is false, that, after all 
which has been said in favor of it, it cannot be 
fixed on the conscience of mankind. On account 


292 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


of this absurdity, some men discard religion alto- 
gether, while others, though glad enough to avail 
themselves of it as a cloak for sin, and as a means 
of parrying every appeal to their consciences which 
may be made by the ministers of the gospel, do not 
believe it in their hearts. Why will any persons 
continue to labor in so hopeless a cause, and, above 
all, to identify religion with a cabfiadictions of the 
indestructible common sense of mankind ? 

The mischievous idea which ungodly men‘ do 
entertain of themselves, and of which it is so hard 
to divest them, is, not that they are able to do well, 
but that they are disposed to do well. They main- 
tain that they have i Nae hearts, that they wish to 
be good people, that they do the best they can, and 
would do better if they could. They are willing 
enough to confess weakness, but not wickedness. 
This is their ruinous self-flattery, exalting them- 
selves in their own eyes, contradicting the testimo- 
ny of God leading to a rejection of the gospel, and 
inducing fatal slumbers. It is the contrary of this 
which they find so hard to learn, and which, indeed, 
none ever do learn but as taught of God. Willany 
reader, who knows any thing of experimental piety, 
decide this question by an appeal to his own con- 
sciousness? What was the discovery which divine 
instruction led you to make ? Was it not that your 
heart was determined against God and holiness, and 
so desperately determined as to yield to none but an 
Almighty power? You have imagined yourself dis- 


posed to good, you found that you loved evil; and. 


1 
h 
: 
j 
a 
j 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 293 . 


the discovery was associated witha sense of vile- 
ness, and emotions of self loathing, which no per- 
ception of mere weakness, or want of power, could 
ever have produced. 

8. It has been said that, in maintaining the abili- 
ty of man, we maintain also free-will. 

Of all the imputations brought against us, this is 
perhaps the strangest, since it shows, not only an 
entire ignorance of the bearings of the controversy, 
but an almost incredible inattention to the language 
employed in it. We maintain that man is free; 
but we deny the will to be either free or bound, since, 
from its nature, it is not capable of being so. By 
Sree-will, however, we suppose our brethren to mean 
a disposition to goodness ; an actual choice of holi- 
ness, or a willingness to choose it; and this our 
‘whole treatise goes, in the strongest possible man- 
ner, to deny to man. While we affirm that he can 
turn to God, we are continually also affirming that 
he will not: what other reason, indeed, can we assign 

why he does not? Those who assert that they have 
not power, are the parties who have the opportunity, 
if they please, of cherishing the fancy of a good 
disposition in sinners, inasmuch as, if they had one, 
according to them, it could be of no avail to their 
conversion. Upon our principles, the whole stress 
of men’s impenitence is laid upon their determina- 
tion not to repent, which is exhibited in a much 
stronger light by us than by our brethren, and yet 
they are amusing themselves, and deluding their 
82 


294 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. © 


followers, by hurling at us the charge of maintain- 
ing free-will ! | 

9. The novelty of the ground now taken, in assert- 
ing that.man is ABLE vo do his duty, has been alleged 
as another ground of objection. Even Mr. Fuller, 
it is said, and all divines of that class, have hitherto 
admitted a moral inability, Why need you go fur- 
ther? 

There is one sense in which the writer is far from 
pleading guilty to the charge adduced. He ean re- 
vere no doctrine which is not as old as the bible 
and when it is shown that any he holds are less an- 
cient than this, he will immediately relinquish 
them. He considers the tenets he opposes as the novel- 
ties. An antiquity of a few hundred years is total- 
ly insufficient to exempt them from this character.* 


In reference to the controversy, however, which — 


has been carried on in England within the last 
hundred years, in which the late Rev. Andrew Ful- 
ler bore a conspicuous part, and the ground which 
he has taken in it, the author must, perhaps, to some 
extent, though not to a very considerable one, admit 
the allegation of novelty. 

Mr. Fuller maintained, that the omly obstruction 
to @ sinner’s repentance was the aversion of his 
heart to God, that is to say, an evil disposition } in 
this grand peint entirely concurring with the pre- 
sent writer. This he still called inability; but, to 


BS 0 ne a aN rare se a EN 


*See Ryland’s Memoirs of Fuller, chap. i. first Edit. 


. 
4 


i 
; 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 295 


separate from the term the inapplicable and mis- 
_chievous ideas involved in its ordinary use, he 
adopted the method previously used by some Ame- 
rican and other divines, of calling this supposed in- 
ability of sinners to repent a moral inability. By 
this phrase he explains himself to mean such an 
inability as consists in a wantof disposition; thus 
‘distinguishing it from a natural inability, the exis- 
tence of which he denied.* This very: statement 
leads directly to the conclusion to which we have 
come ; for if moral inability be such as consists ina 
» Want of disposition, natural inability must be such 
as consists in a want of means, there being no other 
_ ideas to which ability has ever been referred but 
these two, means and dispositions Mr. Fuller, 
therefore, really held what we have maintained, 
namely, that man possesses full power to repent, in 
as far as the possession of means without disposition 
_ constilutes power. Whether the possession of means 
without disposition does constitute power, ia the 
full and’ proper sense of that term, we have consid- 
ered at large, page 110; and we entertain no doubt 
but Mr. Fuller would have heartily agreed in our 
~ conclusion. 

The appropriateness and expediency of using the 
term moral inability to denote a wrong disposition 
is highly questionable. It satisfied the disputants 
ot past days; but, at the time, it rather concealed 

than exhibited the truth “contended for, and ever 


*Ilid. chap. viii. p. 353. first Edit. 
: s3 


b 


aa 


296 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


~ since, it has rather occasioned perplexity than fas 
cilitated inquiry. The existence of znabdility on the 
part of sinners was the main position which the op- 
posing divines had maintained; and the adoption of 
the phrase in question permitted them to continue 
to maintain it. Its being qualified by the term mo- 
ral was of little consequence ; still, they said, you 
allow inability to exist, and whether natural or moral. 
makes no difference, tv 1s1NaBiLity. Hence, though 
the argument of Mr. Fuller was triumphant, much 
less was gained by it than it contemplated and de- 
served; and to this day both clergy and laity are 
suffering, to a great extent, the very same mischiefs 
from the notion of moral inability, which that of _ 
natural inability had previously inflicted. The ques-_ 
tion really at issue has been kept at bay. by that in- 
appropriate and ill chosen term; and the battle re- 
mains yet to be fought on the clear and ‘open 
‘ground,—Is there, or is there not, on the part of a 
sinnér, any inability at all? | 
It may be observed, also, that, although the idea — 
which Mr. Fuller attached to the phrase moral ina- 
bility was clear and definite enough, yet it is liable 
to receive, and has often received, a very different 
interpretation. ‘‘ Moral inability!” says a reader of 
this language; “and what is moral ability or ina- 
bility 2 Moral ability surely must be such an abil- 
ity as is required to the performance of moral actions 
or at least to the performance of actions morally 
good; and it I have not such ability, no actions mo- 
rally good, can be required of me.” This is not at 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 297 


all-an unnatural or unreasonable interpretation of the 
terms, but the idea itself is altogether erroneous; 
moral ability in this sense, or-ability to perform ac- 
tions morally good, consisting merely in the. pos- 
session of intelligent faculties and the power of 
moral* judgments, which are possessed by every: 
man of a sane mind. 

We are very willing to admit that the term ina- 
bility may be applied to the want of disposition in 
an analogical sense, as cannot, impossible, and oth- 
ers [requently are; but we must maintain that it is 
only in an analogical sense it can be so applied. 
This is the pivot of the whole dispute. If it be as 
we affirm, then the combination of terms in ques- 
tion is inappropriate; it is not literally and strictly 


_ true, that is, it is not true in its ordinary and appa- 


rent sense. We do not deny that words may be, 
and often are, used out of their strict and” literal 
meaning ; but Seaias should not be so used in argu- 
ment, and most especially not the words which ex- 
press the very ground of debate,“and the precise 
point of contention. Metaphors and analogies are 
excellent for illustration of an admitted sentiment, 
but wretchedly confounding in the examination of 


-acontested one. If we wish any clearness or con- 


clusiveness of argument, nothing is more important 
than to feduce every principal word we employ to 
its strict and literal meaning, and never to use it in 
any other; but above all tinal is this desirable, we 
may say it is indispensable, with the primary terms. 
On this ground we conceive the phrase moral ina- 


298 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


bility should be altogether dropped, inasmuch as it 
proceeds upon an analogy which is extremely likely 
to mislead; let us rather know in plain terms what 
is meant by it, and make that the subject of our dis- 
cussions. There is no difficulty in this. The terms 
moral inability mean a wantof disposition, a phrase 
which ought in ali cases to become its substitute. 
What must we think, if the clearness and simpli- 
city which it throws into the argument should be 
felt as an objection to this proposal? If the terms 
moral tnability are to be retained on any reasonable 
ground, it must be because they are striclly and pro- 
perly applicable to a want of disposition; an opinion 
which we shall be extremely happy to see any one 
attempt to establish. . 

If the term inability be in strictness inappropriate 
to the subject, there is the more reason it should be 
abandoned, because there is a perpetual and irresis- 
tible tendency in all upon whom the argument 
bears to understand it literally. Thus when we urge 
a sinner to repent, he replies, But you tell me I am 
unable ; in this case plainly taking the word unable 
in its sfrict and not in its analogical sense. If we 
have used it in that sense, he fairly repels our ex- 
hortation, and may defy us to meet his argument: 


if we have not used it in this sense, it behoves us. 


then to tell him so, and say, Z do not mean that you 
are really unable ; you ure strictly and truly able to 
repent. And if this is the point to which a single 
observation of an ungodly man may drive us, why 
should we set out with the tenacious and prominent 


| 


; 


| 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 299 


use of a phrase which we must so soon abandon, 
and even apparently contradict ? 

The names of those who originated and conducted 
the great and important discussion respecting the 
duty of man, called the modern question, deserve 
to be had in everlasting remembrance, nor can the 
author ever forget, or fail most gratefully to ac- 
knowledge, his deep obligations to them. But he 
feels no apology due for differing from them. One 
thing they taught him was to think for himself; 
and he is sure they would be happy, in having led 
others to a view somewhat clearegand more accu- 
rate than their own. He has no name to add 
weight to his opinions; but he claims not to be 
judged at a human bar. Why would his readers 
inquire whether he agrees with Mr. Fuller? Let 
them ask only whether he is consistent with the 
oracles of God. 

If it were of any importance, however, (and to 
the writer it is certainly matter of gratification, ) 
it might be stated, that in this sentiment he is far 
from being alone. He has reason to believe, that 
not a few of the most able and most useful minis- 
ters of the gospel in various denominations mainly, 
if not entirely, agree with him; and that the same 
sentiments are entertained by many judicious chris- 
tians in private life, who are longing to see their 
teachers escape from the loosening bonds. He has 
a cheering confidence that the bonds are loosening, 
and is sorry that any worthy men should identify 
themselves with a falling system. 


300 CONSIDERATIONS FOR 


CHAP. XVII. 


Considerations for those who may not be convinced. 


However willing we may be to hope that the 
preceding pages may have carried conviction to 
some of our readers, it were too much to suppose 
this to have beey the case with themall. We shall 
probably part with some of them without having 
produced this result. - Concerning them we have 
no wish, but that they would give repeated and se- 
rious examination to whatever may seem to them 
adapted to the attainment of truth. If, after all, 
they retain the opinion which we have combated, 
we leave two points for their consideration. . 

1. Those who find it hard to admit that a sinner. 
can turn to God, should consider whether it is not 
quite as hard to maintain firmly that he cannot.— 
The position we have taken is this; that @ sinner 
can come to Christ, whether he will or not; that is, 
suppose either case, that he will, or that he will not, 
still he can come. The opposite sentiment, fully 
‘and fairly expressed, is, that, whether he will or not 
@ sinner cannot come. If our brethren in the argu- 
ment do not mean this, it is quite time they should 
be explicit with themselves, and penetrate the fal- 
lacy which must be lurking somewhere amidst the 
terms they employ. If they do fairly mean this, 


* 


} 
i 


| 


THE UNCONVINCED. 301 


really it is rather a hard case. In one alternative 
indeed, on the supposition that the sinner will not 
come, the alleged cannot might be of little conse- 
quence, though still it would be ealling thins by 
wrong names, and withholding from God the glory 
which is his due. But let us take the other alter- 
native, and say, If a sinner will come to Christ, he 
cannot :—what are we to think ofthis? It will 
doubtless be met by an immediate ery, that a sin- 


ner will not come, that such a supposition never will 
be realized, and that therefoue it is unfair. We 


know that such a supposition never will be realized : 
but we cannot allow it on that account to be unfair. 


_ The proper way to try a sentiment or an argument, 


is to make various suppositions, as many indeed as 


it will possibly admit of, and see how it appears in 


those varied lights; for every portion of truth is 


lke a fragment of complex mechanism, it will fit 


no where but in its place, and it will fit exactly 
there. We are willing that our position should be 
tried on either supposition, either that a sinner 
will come, or that he will not; and if our brethren 
are not willing that theirs should be put to a similar 
test, it must be either because they have, or ought 
to have, some want of confidence in their argu- 
ment. If the argument itself will not bear this 
examination, it is undoubtedly fallacious; and ev- 
ery man who has any regard to truth or honesty 
should immediately renounce it. Let us proceed to 
the trial. 


3n2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR 


One of the swpposable cases involved in the states 


ment that, whether he will or not, a sinner cannot” 


come to Christ, is that a sinner may be willing to 
come,to Christ, and yet not able; a case indeed ap- 
parently contemplated by some, who to be more ex- 
plicit than their neighbors, take pains to reiterate 
that men have neither will nor power to return to 
God. Let us then imagine such a person before us. 
By the supposition, he is willing to come to Christ; 
his resistance is subdued, the enmity of his heart 
has given way, he has renounced sin and.the world, 
he is in a state of right feeling towards God, and 
quite ready to return and submit himself to the ap- 
pointed Saviour; but—he cannot! What is the 
meaning of this? He cannot? What is to pre- 
yent him? Let it be explicitly stated what cause 
ean interpose its baneful influence to obstruct this 
blessed return. We have heard of many things 


which make a sinner unwilling, and so prevent his . 


conversion ; but here is a case supposed in which 
all these hindrances are removed, and yet there is 
the strange mystery of some other hindrance, to 
prevent a willing sinner from bowing to the Sa- 
viour! In the name of all that is reasonable and 
honest, we demand that this hidden, mysterious, 
and as yet nameless power, should be dragged 
forth to light, that we may have an opportunity of 
ascertaining its nature, and counteracting, its influ- 
ence. 


Nor is this all. In what a pitiable condition is _ 


the sinner thus placed! He has been told to come 


¢ 


\ 


THE UNCONVINCED,. 303 


to Christ, under assurances of mercy; and he is 
willing to come but he capnot. The state of his 
mind is altered, as prescribed, but not his condition 
of wrath. Not having come to Christ, he is still 
under condemnation, though he is no longer in love _ 
with sin, nor at enmity with his Maker. He is 
bound “aii for destruction, therefore, by something 
else than his sins; he Poul escape, but he cannot. 
There is something in this representation truly hor- 
rible, and adapted to dissaciate from the perishing 
sinner every feeling of blame, and render him an 
object of unmixed and iad compassion. ‘Hith- 
erto we have been accustomed to regard him as lia- 

| ble to perish, only because he was wedded to his’ 
sins, and as rushing on destruction in away of wil- . 
fulness and ¢riminality, which rendered his punish- 
ment as just as itisawful. But every thing must’ 
now be viewed in a different light. Unfortunate 
wretch! If he could, he would escape. He has 
no love of sin, no enmity to his Maker, no rejection 
of the Saviour, but some dreadful power will not 
suffer him to accomplish his wishes, and binds him 
over to perdition. Perish, then, miserable victim y 
The whole creation will SRE STE 5 with thee in 
thy fall. 

_ Once more. What must we think of the author 
of such astate of things as this? Is there in such 
a condition any thing merciful, any thing equitable ? 
Is it not one from which all our feelings revolt with 
horror? And yet, if the sentiment under considera~ 
tion be true, the possible existence of such a con- 
| 
I 


l 


304 - CONSIDERATIONS FOR 


dition must be ascribed to the most glorious and 
blessed Being in the uniwerse; for he has determin- 
ed the details of our natural and moral situation.— 
How can it for a moment be supposed, that a being 
infinitely just and merciful should have adopted a 
constitution capable, wnder any circumstances, of 
producing such an alternative as this, and requiring 
only a due consideration of what he himself has 
most earnestly pressed upon their attention, in order 
actually to produce it; while at the same time he 
professes to have made a most gracious provision ~ 
for the salvation of the guilty upon their return to 
him, and calls and invites sinners, who, when they | 
hear and would accept the call, find, unexpectedly 
that they cannot doso, and sink helped into hell, 
“with all the apparatus of mercy turned intoa hitter 
mockery of their ruin. 

Every one must be deeply convinced that the — 
ever blessed and glorious God is imfinitely remote 
from the possibility of such an imputation. Nor 
do we wish to insinuate, for a moment, that those’ 
who are opposed to us on the question at issue make 
any approach towards such an imputation; they — 
probably regard it with as deep horror as ourselves ; 
but it is not the less true, that the consequences we 
have exhibited are involved in the sentiment they 
maintain; andif they are to be avoided, it can only 
be by abandoning their ground. Let them recollect 
their assertion—that, whether he will or not, a sin- 
ner cannot come to Christ: and then let them 
trace our deduction from it most rigidly, determined 


THE UNCONVINCED. 305 


to detect its fallacy, if it be fallacious, but equally 
determined to relinquish their tenet, if it be correct. 
The reader can scarcely have failed*to perceive, 
in some points of the argument, an .appearance of 
contradiction and perpiexity.. We have spoken, 
for example, of a sinner’s being no*longer an enemy 
to God, and yet not being reconciled to him; when, 
in fact, not to be an enemy is the same thing as 
being reconciled. We have been compelled to 
Speak in this way, because the statement against 
which we argue overlooks the fact, that the terms 
coming to Christ, being reconciled to God, &c. are 
simply expressive of a state of mind; the state of 
mind being that, also, with which salvation is con- 
nected. ‘To say, therefore, that a man cannot be 
reconciled to God, evenif he ceases to be an enemy 
to him, is to say that he cannot bein a certain state 
of mind, even if he is in that very state of mind; 
a direct and obvious contradiction, when drawn out. 
from the familiar, yet ill-understood phraseology, 
under which the unobservant suffer it to be disguised 
and concealed. 
2. The asserters of the inability of man should 
inform us what man can do. They have been can- 
did enough, on certain occasions, to allow that he 
can do something, though his ability does not, in 
heir view, correspond with his duty ; but it is im- 
ortant that they should describe particularly what 
an can, and what he cannot do, and draw an intelli- 
ible line of demarcation between these two great 
rovinces of action and duty. The distinction is 


306 CONSIDERATIONS FOR 


unquestionably of considerable moment, and less 
attention has been bestowed upon, it by our breth- 
ren than it “deserves. So far as their ideas upon it 
can be collected, they appear to hold, that, though. 
man can neither be or do any thing spiritually good, 
(that is good in disposition,) yet he can use the 
means for this end; and one writer, who has been 
unusually explicit upon this subject, has given us 
the following statement. 

“Man is able, and ought to examine the eviden- | 
ces of christianity, andthe contents of the inspired , 
volume. He is able, and ought to attend on the 
ordinances of religion, to retire for serious reflec-_ 
tion on what announcements have been made by 
the preacher; and to examine, his own heart and. 
life, by the infallible test of scripture. He is able,” 
and ought to go upon his knees before God, for con-— 
fession of sin, and supplication for merey and power. 
He is able, and ought to avoid the company of the 
ungodly, and to seek intercourse with. those who 
fear God. He is able, and ought to observe the 
dealings of God with him in Providence, and in- 
quire what influence they have upon him: He is 
able, and ought toconsider the solemnities of death, 
judgment, and the eternal state, and the descrip- 
tions given of those who are prepared. Will any 
one deny those things to be within the compass o 
his own ability, or affirm them to be exeluded from 
the mos! obvious duties? In this course every on 
may cherish hope.” Douglas’s Letter to the Au. 
thor, p. 15. 


THE UNCONVINCED. 307 


It is obvious, upon the face of this statement, 
that these defenders of man’s inability allow and 
maintain his ability also, in the same sense, and to 
the same extent as ourselves. We have asseried 
nothing more than that man ean use the means of 
being and doing all that he ought to be, of which 
every reader may satisfy himself by referring to 
our definition of power, page 110; and this it seems, 
part of our brethren in this controversy freely allow. 
There is, therefore, no real difference between US ; 
and the discussion reduces itself to these two points: 
l, Whether the means we possess of being what 
we ought to be are sufficient ; and 2, whether the 
possession of such means is properly called power. 
Both these points have already engaged our atten- 
tion, see pp. 93, 110: we shall here only make two 
remarks. The first is, that, if we suppose God to 
have required certain effects to be produced by 
means which are not sufficient, we attach to him the . 
_ imputation of “gathering where he has not straw- 
- ed,” which he repels with so much indignation 
when insinuated by the “wicked and slothful ser- 
vant,” (Matt. xxv. 24,26.) The second is, that, in 
all ordinary cases, the possession of sufficient means 
is considered as the possession of power. He that 
has sufficient means of doing any thing, can do it. 
If this be an error, let it be corrected in common 
life; if it be a truth, why should it be rejected in 
religion 2 

If we accurately interpret the views of our breth- 
ren upon this point, it is clear, that, with all their 

Tee 


308 CONTRARIETY OF 


array of hostility against us, they really hold the 
~ very sentiment for which they make us fight, and 
for defending which they visit us sometimes with 
such severe animadversions,—raiher an unkind re- 
turn, by the bye, for our trouble in vindicating their 
sentiments. Whatever injurious consequences may 
result from the sentiment itself, the mischief lies as 
much at their door as at ours;_nor can it be much 
to their advantage, that what they affirm in one 
form of words they strenuously deny in another.— 
If, on the contrary, we do not understand them cor- 
rectly,—if they do not mean that man can use the 
means of being what he ought to be, it will materi- 
ally aid the discussion if they will have the kind- 
ness to explain themselves more fully, and specify 
distinctly what man can do; athing which is mani- 
festly: important, and ought not to be difficult. 


CHAP. XVIII. 


Of the necessity of the Holy Spirit as implying con- 
trariety of disposition. 


WE have already seen that the necessity of the 
Spirit’s influence-to the conversion of a sinner im- 
plies something respecting the condition of a sin- — 
ner himself; narnely, that, without such aid, he — 
would never turn to God. It might be supposed, 


’ 


DISPOSITION. 309 


“y many it has been supposed, to imply, that he is 
destitute of power to do so; a sentiment which we 
have been examining, and endeavouring to disprove. 
What then does it imply? 'To this we have already 
answered in substance, that it implies contrar vety of 
disposition; a statement which we now proceed 
more fully to develope and establish. 

It is the more needful to do this, because, as 
there ‘is a strong tendency, on the one hand, to 
maintain that man has not power to do well, so is 
there a tendency, on the other, to imagine that he 
has a disposition to do so. Men will much rather 


; confess weakness than wickedness, and cling fondly 


to the delusive imagination that they would be 
right if they could: we sorrowfully believe, on the 
contrary, that the disposition of man is directly, 
powerfully, and, to use a scriptural expression, 
“desperately wicked.” It is not our business here 
to enter into the proofs of this at large; but to show 
merely how it arises out of the doctrine we have al- 
ready established, namely, that of the absolute ne- 
cessity of the Spirit’s influence in order to conver- 
sion. 

If this doctrine be true, it is but the same thing, 
in other words, to say that, without the Spirit, re- 
pentance will never take ate Now, though there 
may be an endless diversity of circumstances, there 
can be only two causes operating to prevent any ac- 
tion: either we have not power, or we have not 
disposition to perform it. All hindrances.may be 
reduced to these, nor can anv other be imagiped. If 


310 CONTRARIETY OF 


the Holy Spirit, therefore, be nécessary to repent- 
ance, it must be either because we have not power, 
or because we have not disposition to repent with- 
out him: but we have shown that we have power, 
wherefore it must be becatise we have not disposi- 
tion. 

We now take it as proved that we have power to 
repent ; if, in addition to this, we have also a dis- 
position to repent, it is manifest that we shall doso | 
of our own accord, every action being certainly per- 
formed when we have both the power and the dis- 
position to perform it. In such a case the Holy 
Spirit would not be necessary,'seeing that we should 
repent independently of him; but we have seen 
that his blessed influence is necessary ; whence it 
follows, that, however we may flatter ourselves, we 
have not a disposition to repent. T'o conceive that 
we are of ourselves disposed to repent, and do 
every thing right if we could, or as far as we can, 
is directly to deny the need of the Spirit’s energy. 

No doubt there are often arising in the minds of 
men certain thoughts, or perhaps feelings, on the 
subject of religion, which may be mistaken fora 
disposition to repent. These are nothingmore than 
admonitions of conscience, or slight emotions of 
fear or desire. At their greatest amount they have 
no prevailing influence, they’ lead to no determina- 
tion, to no action. In this way, and to this extent, 
the heart may be affected by many things at the 
same time, and inclinations excited towards differ- _ 
ent, and even opposite objects. It is manifest that 


DISPOSITION. 311 


- such inclinations are of no practical value, and that 
they indicate nothing respecting a man’s charac- 
ter, or what may be expected from it. He may 
have some inclination to religion, but more to 
worldliness ; and so may be always worldly, in de- 
fiance of his inclinations to religion. That which 
determines character is the prevailing inclination, 
or what we have strictly defined to be disposition, 
as distinct from inclination ; andit is this we mean, 
when we say, man has no disposition to repent.— 
He may, and often does feel convicted, alarmed, 
desirous, but his prevailing feelings are always, ne- 
vertheless, earthly and unholy ; and what we con- 
clude from the necessity of the Holy Spirit, is, 
that they always will be so. If such feelings 
should ever arise to a prevailing degree, in that 
case, repentance would take place without the Spi- 
rit, which, as we have seen, will never be the 
case. 

The necessity of the Spirit’s influence, therefore, 
establishes the unwelcome and melancholy fact, 
that our natural disposition is opposed to God, to 
our duty, and to our welfare. We love sin, we 
hate our Maker. This is afflictive ; but what fol- 
lows is farmore so. Our disposition, it appears, is 
thus hostile to God and to our duty, in the midst of 
circumstances most powerfully adapted to render it 
otherwise. God has exhibited himself to us in co- 
lours of the brightest glory, and of the most heart- 
touching mercy. Every thing just and weighty in 
obligation; every thing solemn and impressive in 

T 2 


312 CONTRARIETY OF 


prospect ; every thing winning and constraining in 
kindness ; every thing powerful and generous in 
motive ; every thing by which every chord in the 
heart might be touched, has been set before us; and 
yet our disposition is hostile to God, and reckless of 
our own ruin. Nor is this all. It is desperately 
so. So wedded tosin, so bent upon self-indulgence, 
that not all which God has said ever will induce 
even serious consideration; no patience, no repeti- 
tion of his calls, no earnestness of importunity, no 
approach of terrors, ,will ever change this melan- 
choly mind. His Spirit alone must achieve the 
transformation. The intensity of evil disposition 
which this evinces, therefore, is most extreme and 
astonishing. It can find no parallel. In other 
cases considerations of duty, of gratitude, of inter- 
est, find their way to the heart by which for a time 
they may have been resisted; but in this, though 
infinitely the most important, an ill disposition 
reigns so triumphantly as to repel every attempt.— 
He that fears his fellow creature, defies his Maker ; 
he that is grateful to an earthly benefactor, insults 
an heavenly one; he that shrinks from bodily harm, 
plunges his soul into hell; he that attaches bound- 
less importance to time, trifles with eternity. And 
all this will he continue to do, amidst the revealed 
glories of heaven and terrors of hell; amidst the 
warnings of wrath, and the wooings of mercy; 
amidst*the tears of the Saviour, and the lamenta- 
tions of angels; amidst the reproofs of his consci- 
ence, and the anticipations of destruction. Such. 


DISPOSITION. 313 


alas! is man. What words can adequately des- 
cribe a disposition so deplorable! 4 

The second part of our plan, which was to ex- 
amine the aspect of the Spirit’s work on the previ- 
ous condition of man, has now been executed, and 
the result of it may be summed up in a few words. 
The necessity of the Spirit’s influence in order to 
conversion does not argue a want of power in man, 
but it does argue a contrariety of disposition: and 
this, it is afflictive to say, to an extent most aston- 
ishing, and almost incredible. It remains for us to 
observe, in the last place, the aspect of the Spirit’s 
work in relation to the ways of God. 


y ide 


314 THE WAYS OF GOD. 
PART ITI. 


THE ASPECT OF THE SPIRIT’S WORK IN RELA‘ION TO 
THE WAYS OF GOD. 


THE ministration of the Spirit, or the employ- 
ment of his almighty energy to accomplish the 
transformation of a sinner’s heart, is one of the ways 
of God, or a part of his general administration to- 
wards the children of men. As such it has by no 
means an isolated character, but stands connected 
with all other parts of the same administration ; and 
in this connexion it has features of great excellency 
and importance. Some of these we have been led 
indirectly to notice in the preceding portion of this 
volume; but they call for a more distinct and pro- 
minent exhibition. 

Before we enter further upon this part of our 
subject, it will be necessary to observe the two prin- 
cipal views in which the ministration of the Spirit 
is exhibited to us in the sacred oracles. On the 
one hand it appears as an unsolicited effectual operas 
tion ; as in such passages as these: ‘This is the 
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel 
after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws 
into their mind, and write them in their hearts. 
will take away the stony heart, and give you an 
heart of flesh, and I will put my Sous within you, 


= 


} 
; 
7 


Ms 


THE WAYS OF GOD. - e345 


ae 


and cause you to walk in my ways. Thy. ople 


~ shall be willing in the day of thy power.” ~ ~ (Heb. 


er 


viii. 10. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. Psalm cx. 3.) 
On the other hand, it appears as a blessing éo be 


sae by prayer: ‘Turn you at my reproof; 
behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you. If ye 


; 
i 


- being at know how to give good gifts unto your 
children, how much more shall your heavenly Fa- 
ther give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him? If 
any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who 
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not,” — 
(Prov. i. 23. Luke xi. 13. James i. 5.) 

It cannot be necessary to enter into any argument 
upon the point which these passages establish; 
since, if they do not exhibit a two-fold aspect of 


- the ministration of the Spirit, it would seem diffi- 


cult to know how language is to be understood. 
The blessed God, we are informed, sends his Spirit 
into the heart of some who do not seek him; but 
he is also graciously willing to impart it to all who 
do. These two modes of administration proceed 
upon different, though not jarring principles, and 
contemplate dissimilar, but harmonious ends ; they 
will require, therefore, a distinct consideration, and 
it will be proper to begin with the latter. , 


or0:. THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


CHAP. I. 


Of the ministration of the Spirit in answer to prayer. 
é Pp pray 


Tue attitude which God assumes when he pro- 
mises to give his Holy Spirit to all who ask it, is 
that of graceyor kindness. 

In saying this, we wish, of course, that the work 
of the Spirit should be regarded in the light in 
which we have already placed it. We are aware 
that some views of it lead rather to an idea that it 


8 matter of justice, while others might almost au-— 
thorize the inference that it is matter of cruelty; _ 


but we have nothing to do with these views. As 


we have exhibited it, and we hope we have exhibit- © 


ed it according to Be scriptures, it is matter of kind- 
ness. 

1. It is more than just. Between measures of 
justice and of kindaess there is a wide and essen- 
tial difference. Things just are things due to a man 


an right, the withholding of which would do him - 


: 


wrong. Things kind are things not due toa man 
in right; though by the communication of them he 
might be benefitted, yet, from the withholding of 
them, he derives no ground of complaint. That 
which is due in right, therefore, is st:nply just, it is 
not kind ; that which is kind is more than just. To 
take a familiar example: I give to a certain person 


IN ANSWER TO PRAYER. Sit 


ten pounds ; if Iam in his debt to that amount, it 
is merely an act of justice; if I owe him nothing, 
it is of course an act of kindness. 

I: This distinction is strictly applicable to the case 
| in hand. Though it cannot be said that man me- 
rits any thing of his Maker, yet, seeing that he has 
been brought into existence, and placed in certain 
circumstances, with certain requirements and pros- 
pects, certain things are due to him from his Maker, 
in order to give to his own conduct, or to the situa- 
tion of his creature, a character of equity. To de- 
mand what he had not given the means of per- 
forming, would be unjust; it is therefore due toa 
~treature, from whom he demands any thing, that 
he should give the means of performing it: and 


however apparently javish the communication of 


benefits may be, until they have rendered the con- 
dition of the creature in all respects equitable, they 
are not acis of kindness, but of justice merely. 
Nothing is kind, which does not go beyond the li- 
mit of justice, and include what is not due to the 
receiver. 

Now, of the promise of the Spirit in answer to 
prayer, we say it is kind ; it is more than just. We 
have endeavoured to show that God has placed man 
in acondition of just responsibility, independently 
of the Spirit: and that, without any regard to his 
agency, we have adequate powers to be and to do 
| all that he requires of us, together with motives of 
_ great abundance and ample sufficiency. If this be 
so, he has done all for us that justice demands, 


a 


318 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


without referring to the Spirit. Or if he has not, 
what more ought he to do? What is necessary in 
any case to a state of just ‘responsibility, but the 
possession of means of acting, together with suffi- 
cient motives to act, and a capacity of appreciating 
them? If it be said, that God ought to give aright 
disposition, we answer, First, that this is never con- 
sidered essential to responsibility in any other case : 
Secondly, that, if it were, responsibility among 
men could not, in many cases, be established at all, 
since we cannot give right,dispositions ; and there- 
fore, servants, children, or subjects, in whom wrong 
dispositions exist, could never justly be held res- 
ponsible for their conduct in such capacities : 
Thirdly, that this would be stultifymg his own 
commands, by bestowing, as a matter of right to us, 
the very thing which he requires as a matter of 
right from us: aright disposition being the sum 
and substance of all his requisitions. Every thing. 
short of a right disposition God has given; this 
justice does not require he should give; when, 
therefore, he promises the Holy Spirit in answer to 
prayer, it is more than just; it is something not 
due to us; an act of unmixed kindness, indepen- 
dently of which we might be governed, judged, 
and condemned, without wrong. 

To see this more clearly, let us contemplate the 
attitude and character of those to whom the promise 
is made. We are made capable of loving and serv- 
ing God ; we are supplied with sufficient motives 
for doing so, and these reauire only consideration in 


4 


IN ANSWER TO PRAYER. 319 


order to produce their effect with a happy certainty. 
What is our conduct? Do we reflect on our con- 
dition and our duty? Do we dwell on the to- 
pics which would win our hearts toGod? Do we 
giveserious attention to the motives which we know 
ought to govern our lives? The very contrary is 
the fact. We dislike God, and turn away from 
every thing that would correct our alienation. We 
fill our hearts with other thoughts, and say, “ De- 
part from me, I desire not the knowledge of thy 
ways.” Whatdo we then deserve ? _Pity? Help ? 
The promise of the Spirit? If indeed, we could 
approach the Almighty, and say, Lord, I have duly 
considered every thing, and yet I do not find suffi- 
cient motives to love thee,—then we might claim 
help; though that help should rather be the disco- 
very of new and more powerful reasons, than an 
influence to make insufficient ones effectual; but 
the neglect and rejection of the truths set before us, 
is certainly calculated to produce wrath rather than 
compassion; and if, in these circumstances, the 
Lord interposes with a promise of his Spirit, it is 
an act of kindness, not only unequivocal in its na- 
ture, but illustrious in its degree. 

There is one point of view in which this exer- 
cise of divine mercy transcends the unspeakable 
gift of his Son. That wonderful interposition was 
designed to open a way of escape for the guilty and 
condemned, and might have proceeded upon the 
supposition, that men who had sinned would gladly 
em brace an opportunity of repentance and pardon; 


320. THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


but here is the case of sinners who will not repent, 
of rebels who will not be reconciled, of condemned 
persons who scoff at pardon, of enemies who deli- 
berately persevere in their crimes. Nothing could 
be calculated to close the door of mercy like this. 
It isa new provocation, more aggravated than all 
which have gone before it, and inexpressibly adapt- 
ed to produce the abandonment of a sinner to his 
own ways. Yet, in defiance of this otherwise un- 
heard-of iniquity, does the mercy of God spring’ 
forth afresh, as it were, glorying to surmount all 
obstacles ; acd this deateince provocation is met by 
the overwhelming promise, “ Turn ye at my re- 
proof; behold, Iwill pour out my Spirit unto you.” 
Whence such a mode of conduct has arisen, there 
is no difficulty in determining. Whence could it 
arise, but from those depths of self-sprung merey, 
of free and sovereign love, which characterize the 
whole work of redemption ? 2 Not unto us, O Lord, 
not unto us, but unto thy name be the oly ! 

It may be observed, further, that the kindness of 
the promise is enhanced by the freeness of it. 
Hivery thing is said which may give encouragement 
to sinners of the deepest criminality, and the most 
extreme unworthiness. None shall want a wel- 
come, or fail of an ample supply. The blessing is 
not to be imparted in small quantities merely, or to 
a few favoured individuals; “For thus saith the 
Yord, I will pour water on him that is thirsty, and 
floods upon the dry ground. For every one that 
asketh receiveth, every one that seeketh findeth, 


IN ANSWER TO PRAYER. 321 


and to him that knocketh, it is opened.” (Isa. xliv. 
3; Luke xi. 10.) The promise of the Spirit is 
characterised by the freeness pertaining to all other 
gospel blessings: it is “ without money, and with- 
out price ; for the Lord giveth to all men liberally, 
and upbraideth not.” (Isa.lv. 1; Jamesi. 5.) 

2. If, on the one hand, views have been enter- 

_ tained which would render the promise of the Spirit 
a matter of justice, so, on the other, it has been 
_ doubted whether it is of more than apparent kind- 
ness. Can it be real kindness, it is asked, to pro- 
mise the Spirit in answer to prayer to those who 
cannot pray, but are dead in trespasses and sins? 
Is jit any thing more than torturing them by the 
tantalizing exhibition of unattainable good ? 
__ Upon one class of divines these questions bear 
hard, namely, on those who hold that fallen man is 
disabled for his duty and his welfare ; but let it be 
-recollected, that we hold no such opinion; and, 
believing that man has power to do what is right 
_and holy, of course, we believe also” that he hag 
power to pray. We, therefore, are here involved 
in no inconsistency. 

But, it may be said, men of themselves will not 
seek it, and this God knows. Undoubtedly this is 
the fact. But, if it is meant to argue from this 
that there is any inconsistency in the conditional 
promise, such a principle will take a much wider 
Tange, and cannot be confined to this promise alone. 
_ Why, when there are numberless other blessings 
exhibited in a similar manner, as attainable by 


7 . 


322 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


prayer, is this particular blessing, the gift of the 
Spirit, to be singled out, and separated from its 
companions? Let not the .“exceeding great and 
precious promises” be destroyed in detail. Who- 
ever attacks them, let him attack them altogether, 
and then we shall clearly know, both the nature of 
his object, and the extent of our calamity. Will 
any man, then, impugn the general principle on 
which God has proceeded, in opening the throne of 
grace to mankind at large? With respect to every 
blessing for which he has encouraged us to pray, it 
may be most truly said, he knows that no man, un- 
moved by his Spirit, will ever ask for it. What 
then? Does this petverseness of those to whom it 
is made invalidate the sincerity of his proposal, and 
render it hypocritical? Has he taken shelter un- 
der their obduracy, in order to practise a mockery 
of human woe? Because ¢hey are unwilling, is 
his willingness also to be denied? Or because he 
knew that they would not seek his favours, he 
ought perhaps never to have spoken of them; he 
_ ought to have viewed their miseries without pity, 
and to have shut up the bowels of his compassion ; 


he ought to have assumed the character of a judi- — 


cial destroyer merely, and to have appeared to all 
worlds inaccessible to the touching aspects of hu- 
man wretchedness. Seeing that men would not 
pray, he should have expressed no pity. Cold-heart- 
ed sentiment! Scarcely human should the being 
be deemed, who could act on such a principle re- 
specting his fellow-man; and fearfully regardless 


d 
, 


IN ANSWER TO PRAYER. 323 


of the divine honour must he be who could recom- 
' mend it to the adoption of his Maker. True; men 
will not pray, and God knows it; but they. are mis- 
erable, and therefore the eehibivion of mercy to 
them flows uncontrollably from the tender mercies 
of the Lord; not hugest mountains of guilt can 
obstruct the stream; and that men, having power 
to embrace the promised good, should also be at li- 
berty to refuse it, flows as netessarily from the con- 
stitution of human affairs, a constitution, amidst all 
its mysteries, wise and holy and good. Now, if it 
is NO inconsistency to promise blessings in general 
in answer to prayer, neither can it be anv to exhibit 
the influence of the Spirit in that light: for this is 
but one among a large class of heavenly gifts, 
which we are thus encouraged to seek. 

Let a case be taken from human affairs, as nearly 
analogous as may be to that which has arisen in the 
ways of God: and although nove will be found 
perfectly so, sufficient resemblance may be traced 
for the purpose of the argument. Let us suppose, 
for example, that a poor wretch, ready to perish 


with hunger, lies near my door. My first impulse, he 


if I make any pretensions to compassion, is to offer 
him food. Iam given to understand, however, upon 
authority which I cannot question, and which I do 
entirely believe, that if I prepare food for him, and 
invite him into my house to partake of it, he will 
never come, there being a stubbornness about him, 
or perhaps a personal dislike to me, which will pre- 

vail even over the force of hunger. What course 


. 


324 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


do I then adopt? DoIshut up my bowels of com- 
passion against him, and close my door, and pass 
hin by, indifferent to his wretchedness? Far from 
it. Icannot doso. J rather go to him; and say, 
*¢ Well, I know your obstinacy ; but still 1 am will- 
ing to feed you. Whenever you choose to go to 
my house, you will find an abundant supply.” 
What have I done in this case that is improper or 
unreasonable ? What else could I have done, with- 
out doing myself dishonour? And can the con- 
duct of God towards man be more fairly illustrated ? 

It may be admitted perhaps, that, if the case had 
no other feature, the example would be satisfactory ; 


} 
: 


; 


but a difficulty may still be started ‘by saying, “Jf © 


you had the power of taking away this poor maws 
obstinacy, and giving hima better disposition, would 
it then be kind in you to do all the rest, and not to do 
this too? Now God has such a power in respect of 
sinners ; and unless he exerts this, is not all his other 
kindness rather apparent than real ?” 

Weare quite aware of the seeming force ot this 
argument, but we have no wish to shrink from it. 


There is no doubt atall but this would be an act of 


yet greater kindness, and if it were merely a case 
of persoual goodwill between man and man, it 
might as naturally be expected from the benevo- 
lence of the person supposed, as the supply of food. 
But the case is not of this simple character; and 
the introduction of this new feature on the one 
hand requires the introduction of one also’on the 
other, which will totally change its aspect. A 


’ 


IN ANSWER TO.PRAYER. 325 


right disposition is that which God requires of every 
man as his duty ; it is a matter in relation to which 
he is subject to the government of God, and for 
which he is justly responsible. The case of a sin- 
ner towards God, is that of a subject towards a LF 
vernor; and the right disposition which God re- 
quires, is to be compared to the dues demanded by 
the government. Suppose then that the distressed 
man is your subject, and you are his king. He im- 
plores relief, and you reply, Come in, and you shall 
be assisted. At the same moment certain officers 
arrest him in your name for non-payment of taxes, 
which, to accord with the case of a sinner, it is to 
be supposed he has full power to pay. What is 
your method of proceeding? Do you remit the 
taxes, or pay them for him? Jf he had no power to 
pay, you would gladly do so; but, since he has 
power to pay, you say, Certainly you must pay the 
taxes ; or if you do not choose to do so, I cannot in- 
terfere ; the law must take its course. And so, in- 
stead of relieving his wretchedness, you would ” 
even have him conveyed to prison in your name, 
and by your authority ; when you knew that, by only 
remitting his taxes, a very easy thing for you to do, 
you might have made him happy. Is this kind? 
Your reply is, I must also maintain the authority 
and administration of the government. ‘These are 
‘Just requirements, and I must uphold them, or I shall 
dishonour, and deserve to forfeit my office. Having 
thus answered for yourself, you have answered also 
for your Maker ; and you have answered satisfacto- 
U 


326 THE SPIRIT’S MINIS TRATION 


rily for both, A right disposition in us 1s exactly 
that to his government, which the revenue is to an 
earthly one; the requirement of which, being in 
itself just, ‘it is imperative to maintain. 

« Itis true, that no actual good results from these 
promises, to those who will not plead them: but nei- 
ther will this justify the conclusion attempted to be 
drawn from it. Undoubtedly you do a man the 
greatest kindness, if you improve his condition 
without any effort of his own ; but surely some kind- 
ness is done, if you put him into circumstances in 
which he may, better it himself. Suppose, for ex- 
ample, that you put a sum of money into a poor 
man’s hand, that is kind; but is it no kindness if 
you inform him that it is deposited for him in the 
bank, where he may receive itat his pleasure? Or, 
if you should learn that he would not go for it, 
should you acquiesce in the representation that, be- 
eause you had only done this, you had shewn him 
no kindness? Yet it is thus that some persons are 
disposed to judge of the ways of God. In opening 
the treasures of his grace to sinners wpon their ap- 
plication, we maintain that he does them an illus- 
trious kindness ; which is not at all diminished by 
the perverseness which robs them of the benefit, 
arid turns the very proposal into an aggravation of 
their guilt. : 

3, Viewing the promise of the Spirit as connect- 
ed with the conversion of a sinner, there may scem 
to be another difficulty. It is plain that the same 

All disposition which prevents him from turning to 


IN ANSWER TO PRAYER. 327 


God, will equally prevent him from seeking the aid of 
the Spirit. When he begins to desire and seek 
this, his mind will have been already turned. This 
would be a difficulty, if we maintained that the in- 
fluence of the Spirit was necessary to man’s power 
of conversion, so that, in praying for the Spirit, he 
must be regarded as praying for power to turn to 
God, to do; namely, what he had already done : but 
we hold the contrary sentiment, that man has power 
to turn to God without the Spirit. That power lies 
in his capacity of reflecting on divine truth, which 
it is his duty immediately to begin and to pursue. 
The promises made to prayer are intended to re- 
lieve him amidst the various exercises to which re- 
flection will give origin. He becomes convinced of 
ignorance, of hardness of heart, of love of iniquity ; 
and here the promise of the Spirit meets him, just 
where he wants it, and quite as soon as he wants it. 
{tis now only that he begins to feel difficulty, or 
consciously to want help. He weighs the exhor- 


“tation, “Turn ye at my reproof.” He says, My — 


heart will not turn; I love sin in defiance of every 
_ thing, wretch that T am,.! He reads, “ Behold, T 
will pour out my Spirit unto you;” he ‘ene isin 
Blessed hope! and pleads the promise, by turning 
it into a prayer,—“ Take away the stony heart out 
of my flesh, and give me a heart of flesh.” Let 
these promises be viewed only in their true posi- 
tion, and the difficulty will vanish. They are a 
part of the system of means, intended to meet and 
to relieve the exercises of a reflecting mind; and 


S * 
328 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


to this purpose they are wisely and admirably 
adapted. r 

Our conclusion therefore remains, that when God 
promises the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer, he as- 
sumes an attitude of rich grace, of illustrious mercy. 
We have only to add, that the benignity of this dis- 
pensation is universal and equal. We shall enter 
fully into the subject of election and discriminating 
grace in the following chapter, for which the reader’s 
patience is requested but for a moment; all that we 
here state is, that God will give his Holy Spirit to 
every one that asks it, without any discrimination at 
all. Such is his promise respecting all the bless- 
ings he has encouraged us to pray for, and this can- 
not be an exception. ‘Every one that asketh re- 
ceiveth.” Imagine only a case so confoundingly 
strange as the contrary! Will it be.said that any 


man, seeking the Spirit of God, will be refused and .~ 


repelled? It is incredible. The promises are ex- 
pressed in language of general import; they ex- 
clude none. Whatever discrimination God may 


exercise elsewhere, he uses none among the appli- 


cants at his throne of grace jor the biessings of his 
salvation, 


ee 


IN HIS UNSOUGHT AGENCY. 329 


CHAP. If. 


Of the ministration of the Spirit in his hin: 
agency. 


We have already seen, that, while the blessed 
Spirit is promised to all men in answer to prayer, 
he is also sometimes sent into the heart unsought, 
to accomplish there the great work of his love and 
grace. The specific aspects of this ministration of 
the Spirit are now to be considered. . 

1. It is impossible not to observe immediately its 
pre-eminent grace. If it was kind to promise the 


* Spirit when sought, it is much more so to impart 


his influence when it is not implored. In the for- 
mer case, supplication expresses desire; but, in the 
latter, the attitude of enmity and opposition is still 
maintained. How passing strange is the fact, that 
the blessed Spirit, infinitcly holy as he is, and burn- 
ing for the divine glory, will enter such a breast, 
and wrest out of a sinner’s hand the very weapon 
with which he is about both to defy his Maker, and 
to destroy his own soul! This is going immeasura- 
bly beyond all that justice requires, and is the ut- 


.most length of kindness to a guilty worm. God 


not only provides the blessedness, but gives the 

disposition to embrace it; herein giving what also 

he justly demands, and providing for the payment 
U2 


ih 


330 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


of that to himself, which is righteously due to him 
from his creatures. 

To this it must be added, that the gift of the 
Holy Spirit secures the attainment of the great and 
unspeakable blessings exhibited im the gospel. A 
sinner is then no longer left to trifle with salvation, 
and to reject the Saviour; but the hitherto prevail- 
ing enmity of his heart is overcome, and he is made 
willing in the day of divine power. He resists no 
more; but, led by the Spirit, humbly bows to the 
sceptre of redeeming mercy, and every thought is 
brought into captivity to the obedience of faith. 
He thus becomes an actual par‘aker of salvation 
itself, and enters into the enjoyment of all its pri- 
vileges; being justified by faith, he has peace with 
_God through our Lord Jesus Chitst; by whom also 
he has access into the grace wherein he stands, and 
rejoices in hope of the glory of God. (Rom. v. 1, 2.) 
How pre-eminently gracious must the work be, 
which leads to such Puieannethle and eternal bles- 
sedness! Without the influence of the Spirit, asin- 
ner would be a wretch undone, even in the midst of 
mercies; with it, he becomes unutterably and for 
ever blest. 

2. Unlike the former mode of administering the 
Spirit, however, this is not universal bul peculiar. 
This is known by the fruits; since, wherever the 
Spirit is given, repentance and conversion are ac-, 
tually produced. From the very fact, therefore, 
even if there were no other ev:dence, from the very 
fact that only some persons are converted, the infe- 


a 


: 


¥ 


; 


IN. HIS UNSOUGHT AGENCY. 331 


rence must necessarily be drawn, that only to some 
is the Spirit given. With this inevitable conclu- 
sion the declarations of holy writ fully agree; but 
it is important to show that the burden of its proof 
does not lie upon them. Those who dislike them, 
or their import, may conceive them to be blotted 
out of the book of God, if they please; we call upon, 
them to read in another book the same lesson.— 
The fact is before their eyes, and cannot be oblite- 
rated; why should they find fault with the mere 
words which record it? 

What can be the cause of this peculiarity?— 
Whence can it have originated? By what influence 
can the course of this celestial stream have been de- 
termined? Certainly by God himself, since no other 
being has power or opportunity to interpose in this 
matter, Of the Spirit he giveth to every man se- 
verally as it pleaseth him. But are there any 
known causes which may have guided his determi- 
nation? Does he give the Spirit to one because he 
has made a proper improvement of other favours; 
because he has been considerate and prayerful; be- 
cause he has been upright and moral: and does he 
withhold it from another because he -has been the 
contrary? Or is it merely according to his will, and 
arbitrary pleasure? | $ 
To these inquiries it is obvious to answer, that 
God has certainly not acted without a reason, and 
a good one. No wise being does so, least of all 
He who is infinitely wise. The idea that he has 
distributed his Spirit, or any other blessing, accord- 

u3 


332 THY SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


ing to his mere will and pleasure, however sanc- 


tioned by one class of divines, or attacked by ano- 


ther, is not only unsupported by scripture? but di- 


rectly opposed to it. Hear, for example, the words 
of our Lord. “At that time Jesus rejoiced in spi- 


rit, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast _ 
ai 


hid these things from the wise and prudent, and 
hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; 
for so it seemed good in thy sight.” (Matt. xi. 25, 
26.) When we say that'a person does any thing 
merely because he will do it, we mean that he had 
no regard to the character or tendency of the action 
itself but not such is the aspect of discriminating 
grace. What God has done he has well weighed, 
and has done it because “it seemed good in his 
sight.” . 

The general nature of the reasons under which 
God has acted, are also to be ascertained with suf- 
ficient clearness. There is but one grand reason 


for which he does all things, and that is the glory © | 


of hisownname. With a view to this end, doubt- 
-less he has decided, in every instance, the question 
of the communication of the Spirit. That we 
should be able in all cases to trace this tendency 
of his ways, it would be unreasonable to expect, 
with our limited capaeity, and our present igno- 
rance; but this affords us no just cause to doubt its 
reality. Upon a large scale some views of it are 
already apparent, and are opened to us by inspired 
authority. “Ye see your caliing, brethren; how 
that not many wise men after the flesh, not many 


> “ae! 


en 
r 


“mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath 


i 


IN HIS UNSOUGHT AGENCY. — 333 


chosen the foolish things of the world to eonfound 
the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of 
the world to confound the things which are mighty; 
and base things of the world, and things which are 


despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things whieclr 


are not, to bring™to nought things that are, that no 
flesh should glory in his presence.” (1 Cor. i. 26—29.) 

One thing is certain, that, whatever the reasons 
may be which have actuated the Almighty in any 
particular case, they have never been, derived from 
the deserts*or exceilency of man himself. To none 
has the Spirit been given because of his wisdom, 
or rank, or power, or humility, or virtue, or any 
excellency, natura! or moral; and this principle has 
been adopted out of regard to the grand design that 
God may be glofified in all. Were. it otherwise, 
‘some might have cause for glorying in his presence, 
which may not be, seeing it is written, “He that 
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” (1 Cor. i. 31.) 

The unsought ministration of the Spirit, then, is 
discriminating and sovereign; a point in which 
God does not render to all alike, but severally to 
each, as it seemeth good in his sight. This sim- 


‘ple and inevitable truth is tomany persons a grand 
“stumbling-block, and cause of complaint. God, 
‘then, it is said, makes a difference among men, and 


does not give us all the same facilities for salvation. 


But again we say, that the attack ought to be made, 


not against the doctrine, but against the fact. Sup- 


‘pose the doctrine buried in cblivion, the fact will 


$34 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


be irresistible, so long as you see some around you 
converted, and others in their sins. Whatever 
ground there may be of complaint, therefore, there 
can be no alteration. 
But, after all, is there any foundation for com- 
»plaint? The question to be decided is not, what has 
been God’s conduct to others, but what has been 
his conduct to me. Has he done me any wrong? 
Has he withheld from me any means, or advantage, 
requisite to my having a fair and full opportunity 
of fleeing from the wrath.to come? If he has, it is 
to be found in the examination of my own circum- . 
stances, and not in comparing them with those of 
others. Now in the closest inspection of God’s 
dealings with himself, no sinner can find cause of 
complaint; on the contrary, he is treated, notonly | 
with justice, but with kindness; and if he fails of — 
salvation, it will be only through a wilful and per- 
verse neglect of his opportunites. It is true, his 
next neighbor is dealt with yet more kindly; but | 
that makes, and can make, no difference to him: his 
ease is what it is in itself, and so ever will remain. 
The general view which we take of the unsought 
dispensation of the Spirit is, that it is characterized 
by pre-eminent kindness and sovereign discrimina- 
tion. It may be pleasant, ere we close, to observe 
in what relation the ministration of the Spirit 
stands to the ways of God in their most general 
aspects, considered as consisting in, either the ex- 
ercise of personal kindness, the ministration of mo- 
ral government, or the conducting of an effectual : 
agency. 


IN THE WORK OF REDEMPTION. 335 


CHAP. III 


Of the ministration of the Spirit as connected with 
the work of Redemption generally: 


It is, of course, with no other part of the divine 
ways than the work of redemption, that the minis- 
tration of the Spirit is connected. The whole of- 
fice of this blessed agent, so far as man is con- 
cerned, is to remedy an existing mischief in his 
nature; and the assumption of such an office clearly 
implies, both that he is fallen from his original ex- 
cellency, and that by divine mercy a: restorative 
process is undertaken. The influence of the Spirit 
could not have been calied for under any other cir- 
cumstances; and the administration of it is a part 
of the method by which the redemption ef men 
from sin and misery is accomplished. 

It is not, however, the first part of this method. 
By transgression men are fallen into a state of 
guilt and condemnation, which not only forfeits all 
title to the favour of God, but actually shuts them 
out from the possibility of its communication, 
Without some preparatory operation. The law re- 
quires to be fulfilled, and the righteousness of the 
lawgiver to be maintained, at the same time that 
mercy is extended to the criminal; an effectual 
provision for which must be made, before any ex- 


336 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION 


ercise of mercy is actually entered upon. Hence 
we say, therefore, that the gift of his dear Son toe 
die for sinners is prior, in the dispensations of God, 


to the gift of his Holy Spirit. The communication — 


of the Spirit presupposes the death of Christ, with- 
out which no good thing could ever have been con- 
ferred on the guilty; itis indeed the fruit of his dy- 
ing pains, and is poured out to the honour of his: 
love, and for the glory of his name. 

But this is not all. It might be asked, Why, al- 
though Christ had died, should the Holy Spirit be 
imparted? Was not the way of salvation fully 
opened by the blood-shedding of the Son of God? 
Undoubtedly it was; and if men would have availed 
themselves of it without an-extrinsic influence, 
there would have been no occasion for the opera- 


tion of the eternal Spirit. The introduction of 


this glorious agent proceeds upon the supposition, 
that, although the way of salvation is open, the de- 
termination of man’s heast is so fixed in sin tha 
he will not avail himself of it, even when favoured 
with the amplest opportunities, and addressed by 
the most powerful motives.. Such, on God’s autho- 
rity, the fact is declared to be; and it is to meet this 
feature of the case, that the ministration of the 
Spirit is superadded to the work of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. It is to induce sinners to receive him, te 
cause his enemies to submit themselves, and to 
bring them, in this method, to the actual possession 
of redemption. 

Now it is manifest, that one grand and important 


IN HIS UNSOUGHT AGENCY, 337 


feature of this administration relates to the final 
tissue of the work of redemption itself. Without it, 
although a vast provision had been made for the 
salvation of sinners, not a single sinner would be 
saved; and, in this respect, a character of fruitless- 
ness and disappointment would be given to this 
great undertaking, which could’be neither gratify- 
ing to the benevolence of the Most High, nor con- 
ducive to hisglory. .T'o prevent so undesirable a 
result, and to secure a large and sufficient measure 
of success in the actual salvation of men, the di- 
vine Spirit is sent forth, with his almighty energy, 
to work effectually in their hearts, to vanquish their 
enmity, and bring them to the Saviour, that he may 
see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. ; 

Another principal aspect of the ministration of 
the Spirit has relation to the happiness of man.— 
When God determined to give his Spirit in answer 
to prayer, or more especially, to send him unsought 
into the breasts of particular persons whom he fore- 
knew, while it was for his own glory, it was also 
for their good. It was because he loved them with 
an everlasting love, that he thus purposed to draw 
them with loving-kindness. It is a pre-eminent il- 
lustration of his personal kindness towards the ob- 
jects he had in view. 

It is to be observed, however, that the ministra- 
tion of the Spirit is kept altogether separate Srom the 
moral government of God. He requires obedience, 
he denounces threatenings against sin, he will 
judge and punish the ungodly, quite irrespectively 


338 THE SPIRIT’S MINISTRATION. 


of the influence of the Spirit; as it is manifest he 
must, since he does, and will do, all this to multi- 
tudesof persons to whom the Spirit is not given. 
Now the moral government of God consists in the 
method of dealing with men by means of commands 
and motives, in the prospect of a final retribution; 
and since this comprehends many to whom the 
Spirit is not given, it is plain that the moral go- 
vernment of God is carried on altogether irrespec- 
tively of the ministration of the Spirit. 

The gift of the Spiritisa dispensation of eminent 
personal kindness, and of glorious effectual power.— 
It becomes Him so to work, who ean accomplish all 
things according’ to the counsel of his own will.— 
It is honourable for him thus to secure to his Son 


the joy set before him, and to deteat the awful ma- 
lignity of a rebellious world. It is an attitude in © 


which, with manifest justice, he claims to himself 
ali the glory of asinner’s salvation. It was his 
love which provided a Saviour, whom yet every 
sinner would have rejeeted, without his overcom- 
ing grace. In this, therefore, as in his other works, 
God himself is all in all. To him alone, and in 
every respect, is to be ascribed, that a single sinner 
has been rescued from hell and brought to heaven; 
and to Him alone will the glory be rendered, 
while saints are happy, or immortality endures.— 
Amen, and Amen. 


: 
| 


PRACTICAL ADDRESSES. 339 


PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 
TO A SINNER, ~* 


ON THE PRINCIPLES MAINTAINED IN THE FOREGOING 
TREATISE. 


Tue design of these Practical Addresses is three- 
fold. It is, first, to exhibit the principles which the 
author has been advocating, in a form less argu- 
mentative, and wholly apart from controversy .— 
When a sentiment is much discussed, there is dan- 
ger of its being supposed to be fit for nothing else; 
and persons who do not like controversy, or may 
not be apt at argument, may put it aside as posses 
Sing no interest for them, Such an impression, it 
is hoped, the following pages may obviate or cor~ 
rect, and convince the reader, that the principle 
which hag been vindicated is capable also of being 
applied. 

The author wishes, secondly, to bring his prin- 
ciples to a new and additional test. If they are of 
any value that value lies in their just and forcible 
application to the conscience of a sinner. The ques- 
tion, therefore, is a fair one; How would you con- 
verse with a sinner on these principles? This ques- 
tion he has thus endeavoured to answer; whether 


340 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


satisfactorily to his readers they of course will judge ; 
but, if it was not satisfactorily to himself, he would 
immediately suspect and review his principles. 

But above all, the author has been desirous of 
closing his book with these addresses, because, on 
so deeply important a subject as religion, he could- 
not bear to write a volume of mere controversy.— 
His readers, like himself, are sinners hastening to 
judgment and eternity; and he earnestly requests 
that they will do him the favour to read the follow- 
ing pages as addressed personally to themselves— _ 
Though he may never see them on earth, we shali — 
see each other at the bar of God; and fain would — 
he have every reader poura blessing on him there! 
It will be either a blessing or a curse. 

A brief observation may be necessary, respecting 
the manner in which these addresses are framed.— 
They will, of course be found to contain assertion, 
and net argument, as from the nature of thé case is. 
inevitable; but an attentive reader will find no dif- 
ficulty in referring to the pages, in the preceding 
part of the work, where the several points have been 
argued at length. ‘The author has, throughout, 
avoided the use of the word power, the double 
meaning of which almost inevitably introduces per- 
plexity into the plainest statements. Instead of 
thisterm, he has useda just and exact equivalent ; 
he has spoken of having the means of doing any 
thing, which is the precise definition of power.— 
He begs to add} finally, that these addresses are not 
to be regarded as comprehending ail he would say © 


TO A SINNER. 34f 


to a sinner in the circumstances supposed, but only 
so much as may be connected with, or illustrative 
of, the sentiments which have been under consid- 
eration ; and as presenting, even in this view, ra- 
thera skeleton than a complete body, the principles 
upon which the author would frame his appeal, ra- 
ther than the motives by which he wouldenforce it- 


I. 
Dear READER, 


I may not address you as an innocent, but asa 
sinful man. Itis not that I have pleasure in re- 
garding you as such, but the word of God declares 
us all to be so; and his word is truth. I am will- 
ing, however, to converse with you on this subject 
rationally and coolly; I earnestly wish you, indeed; 
to inquire into the grounds on which you are charged 
with guilt. By all means elear or defend yourself 
if you can. ; 

The general accusation brought against you by * 
_ your Maker, is, that you have not loved him with 
all your heart. Into the proof of this allegation 1 
suppose it is not necessary to enter; you are proba- 
_ bly too well convinced of its truth, to dispute it for 
a moment. | > 

Imay imagine, however, that while you admit 
the fact, that ‘you have not thus loved God, you 
dispute its criminality. Why, you ask, am I there- 
fore condemned as a sinner? The question is 
highly reasonable, and extremely important; I rea- 
dily confess that it behoves one who brings the 


342 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 
charge of sin against you, to be able to establish it 
by clear and conclusive proofs ; and I will endea- 
vour, to meet your demand, as honestly as I hope | 
you have put it. ° ' | 
1. That for which God censures you is, not hav- 
ing loved him; or, in other words, he blames you 
for not having possessed a particular state of mind. — 
This, therefore, is the first point upon which your : 
inquiry bears. Upon what ground of justice does — 
God require you to possess any particular state of 
mind at all? There are creatures around you, I 
mean those of the brute creation, whose allowed 
occupation is nothing more than the gratification of 
their appetites, and the following of their several 
impulses. But this, it seems, is not the ease with 
you. God requires of you something peculiar and 
specific. He is not satisfied that you should merely 
eat and drink, and act out the varied passions which 
may arise within you; but he prescribes a particu- 
«lar course, and demands this at your hands. Why 
should this be? Because the constitution of your 
nature qualifies you to fulfil the demand. You are 
nota mere machine, the sport of circumstances, 
the victim of fate, or the helpless slave of your pas- 
sions. ‘To a certain extent, which we shall define — 
presently, you have the means of attaining whatever : 
state of mind you please. 
It is your nature to love or to hate, to rejoice or 
to be sorry, as you find inducements todoso. You 
have also the means of judging of the various in- 
ducements which may be presented to you in every 


4 


TO A SINNER. 343 


case, in order to estimate their proper force, and to 
determine how far you will yield to them, or resist, 
To qualify you for this exercise of judgment, God 
has given youa perception of good and evil, asense 
of right and wrong, by which the character of all 
inducements may be ascertained, and your course 
respecting them decided accordingly. When you 
perceive any to be either right or wrong, you have 
the means also of establishing or preventing their 
influence, both by the superior force of the sense of 
duty itself, and by turning your attention to such 
considerations as may be adapted to give success to 


your efforts. Now since this is the case, and you’ 


may, by attention, bring your mind to any state you 
please, then it is manifestly not unjust that God 
should require your mind to be in some specific con- 
dition. 

It is plain, as we have said, indeed, that this ca- 
pacity of being what you please is not unbounded. 
It is limited by two considerations; the one is the 
just force of the inducements presented to you, and 
the other your capacity of apprehending them. As 
the state of your mind is to be regulated by consid- 
eration, it follows, of course, that the regulation of 
it can go no further than the due force of the topies 
set before you for this end, nor than your power of 
perceiving that force. If God should have required 
of you any thing beyond these limits, 1 will make 
no attempt to maintain its justice; but if, on the 
contrary, the commands of your Maker are confined 
to the extent within which you are able to be what 

w 


344 ‘PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


you please, and in all cases accompanied with in- 
ducements suitable and sufficient in themselves, 
and weil adapted to your apprehension, then upon 
what ground can their justice be impugned ? 

2. Let us pass on, then, from the fact of such re- 
quirement, the justice of which we will take to be 
admitted, to the tenor of the requirement itself:— 
What 1s it that your Maker requires of you? 

Receive this information from the lips of our di- 
vine Lord, Luke x. 27: “Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with 
all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” 

Such is the law of God, given to man, and to 
every man, as the rule and measure of his demand. 
You may observe, that it intimates the existence of 
strength to be what it commands: otherwise, what 
meaning could there be in the language itself, 
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
strength,” if we had no strength for this purpose ? 
You should observe also, very particularly, that 
the employment of our strength in the way prescrib- 
ed, is the whole scope of the law. It specifies no- 
thing in reference to the quantity of strength which 
We may or may not have; but, taking this at what- 
ever it may actually be, it makes our actual strength 
the precise limit of its demands. With all our 
strength we are to love God, but no further. You 
will mark, therefore, how accurately the require- 
ments of your Maker observe the limitation which 
justice demands; they extend no further than the 


TO A SINNER. 345 


space within which you are able to be what you 
please. 

3. It still remains to ascertain whether the require- 
ments of God are accompanied by suitable and suf- . 
JSicient inducements. ; 

Here let us recollect, that all which God requires — 
of us is to love him, the outward obedience he pre- 
scribes being no other than the fruit of love. . Has 
he, therefore, presented to us suitable and sufficient 
inducements to love him? The question surely 
needs no answer. He is the Lord our God; and 
out of this fact alone inducements of unquestionable 
sufficiency arise. He is Godour Maker, the author 
of our being, with all its powers; and what obliga- 
tion is more strong than this, that the parent should 
be treated with affectionate kindness by his off- 
spring? He is the Lord our Maker; a being of in- 
finite superiority, excellency, and majesty, in com- 
parison with whom we are less than nothing and 
vanity, and with whose glory our whole hearts 
should be identified. Can other or stronger induce- 
ments be needful, ere we have cause enough to love 
him. 

4, The last question to be asked is, whether these 
inducements to love God are set before us in a way 
suited to our apprehension? 1 imagine you can en- 
tertain little doubt upon this point. It is impossi- 
ble to conceive either sentiment or language more 
plain or simple. It is only that children ought to 
love their parents; a truth which we perceive with 
the utmost clearness, and the force of which we feel 


346 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


instantaneously, not merely because of its evidence, 
but because it is intimately interwoven with our 
own relations. No sentiment could be better adapt- 
ed to our apprehension than this. 

~ Let us now recall what has been said. God re- 
quires you to possess a specific disposition. You 
are able to attain specific dispositions, so far as suit- 
able and sufficient inducements are intelligibly set 
before you. Suitable and sufficient inducements 
are thus set before you, in reference to that particu- 
lar disposition which God requires you to cherish, 
namely love to himself. You are therefore justly 
required to love God; and tf so, in not having loved 
him you have been guilty of sin. Let me exhibit 
this to you in another light. 

Understand, then, that your power over your 
own mind lies entirely in your capacity of atten- 
tion and consideration. The state of your mind al- 
ways corresponds with the things you think of ; and 
when you wish it to be in any particular state, if 
there are any intelligible topics suited and suffici- 
ent to induce the state desired, think duly of them, 
and it will be done. This is the constitution of 
your mind; it cannot act otherwise, and in this me- 
thod it will act invariably. In order to love God, 
therefore, what had youtodo? Obviously to think 
of him. Reflecting upon the fact that he is the 
author of your being, and of all your powers; dwel- 
ling upon his boundless glory and excellency in 
this relation to you; doing this with all the helps 
to be derived from his works and from his word ; 


—_—— 3 


TO A SINNER. 347 


and persisting in it, until these topics had been ade- 
quately apprehended by your understanding, and 
had exerted their just influence upon your feelings ; 
doing this, you would have loved him. Failing in 
this, you cannot reasonably have expected to love | 
him; you do not love any other object, neither can 
you love any, but in proportion as you perceive its 
inducements to love, and dwell upon them; nor in 
any other case does dwelling on such inducements 
fail proportionately to inspire love—why should it 
in this ? 

If you had made the experiment, and found it 
unsuccessful; if, after due reflection upon what 
you perceived to be just and sufficient causes for 
love to God, you had not loved him, something 
must have disturbed the rational structure of your 
mind. You would have been no longer sane. The 
very constitution on which the Divine Being 
grounded his requirements, that, namely, by which 
the state of the heart was always to answer to the 
topics entertained by the understanding, would have 
ceased to exist; and with it would have ceased the 
obligation of those requirements themselves. But 
if you did not make the effort; if the great facts 
adapted to excite your love towards God were pre- 
sented to your mind, and disregarded; if you suf- 
fered them to slip ot your recollection, or even 
purposely banished them from your thoughess then, 


_ of course, you have not loved God, but, for not 


loving him, you are guilty, and God rightly holds 
you so. It may now be said to you, Why did you 
Ww 2 


ey 


~ 


348 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


refuse consideration to these things? You knew 
they were right and important, much more impor- 
tant than the other matters to which you surrendered 
your thoughts: yet you did surrender your thoughts 


to other things, and to things which have not only 


left you without love to God, but have induced an 
habitual and confirmed aversion to him. Your 
own judgment condemns you; and God, who is 
greater than your heart, and knoweth all things, 
how shall not he condemn you? Acknowledge, 


‘therefore, that you are justly reckoned a sinner; 


that your mouth is stopped from every excuse, and 
that you have only to plead guilty before God. 


Il. 


I have already endeavoured to show you, dear 
reader, that, for not having loved God, you are justly 
chargeable with sin. I must now set before you 
another painful but certain truth; namely, that for 
sin God will bring you into judgment. Your con- 
duct he not only considers to be wrong, but he holds 


you answerable for it. He has suspended upon it~ 


consequences of the deepest interest. If you had 
loved him with all your heart, you would have 
found in his friendship unspeakable and perpetual 
blessedness ; and seeing that you have not done so, 
wrath is revealed against you fromheaven. A day 
of retribution is already announced, when he will 
say, “As for this thine enemy, who would not that 
I should reign over him, cast him into outer dark- 
ness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 


TO A SINNER. 349 


The aspect of these things is in the utmost de- 
gree solemn and awful; and you are perfectly jus- 
tifiable in inquiring into the reasonableness of such 
an administration. You will perhaps propose some 
such question as this: But, allowing it to be just — 
that 1 should love God, what right has he to make 
this demand of me, and to call me to an account for 
my conduct ? 

His right to do so springs out ef the one great 
fact, that he is your Creator. As the author ot your. 
being, the arrangement of every thing relating to 
your condition lay in his own bosom: and he has 
a right to require from his creatures whatever return 
agrees with their capacity and their circumstances. 
Wherever any thing is given, there something may 
be required ; and much or little, according to that 
which has been bestowed. Being a creature of 
God, therefore, you are zn fact under arightful obli- 
gation to love him, from which, dislike it as you 
may, you can never escape. The only questions 
for you to ask on this subject are, Whether the re- 
turn which God requires be not greater than the 
means bestowed; and whether the punishment he 
denounces be not greater than the criminality in- 
curred. Let us examine them. 

1. I conceive you to ask, first, whether the return 
that God requires from you is not greater than the 
means he has bestowed ; whether he is not gathering 
_ where he has not strawed. 

What God requires is that we should love him 
with all our hearts. We ask, then, whether he has, 

w3 


350 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


or has not, given us the means of doing this. In or- 
der to an answer we must push the question back, 
and inquire, wherein the means of doing it consists. 
Now the means of loving God with all our hearts 
consist, first, in having a heart so constituted, as duly 
and certainly to feel such inducements to love as 
may be presented to the understanding; and 
secondly, in having intelligibly presented to the 
understanding suitable and sufficient inducements 
to love God supremely. These things being so, 
_ then we have the means of loving God with all our 
. hearts, for, im such circumstances, it requires only 
consideration to produce this result. But these are 
in fact the constitution and circumstances of man; 
_whence it follows, that man has the means of lov- 
ing God with all his heart. And if this be the case, 
when God requires man to love him with all his 
heart, he does not require more than he has given 
him means to fulfil, nor therefore an unreasonable 
return for what he has bestowed. He gathers whaé 
he has strawed, and no more. He has found the ta- 
lents, and expected nothing from us but to use them 
according to our several ability. 

2. In relation to the system of responsibility, I 
conceive you to ask, secondly, whether the punish- 
ment denounced be not greater than the criminality 
incurred. Not to have loved God appears to you 
an unimportant fault. 

Let me here request you in the outset, not to be 
misled by the awful metaphorical terms so frequent- — 
ly employed to describe the divine anger. Their 


TO A SINNER. 351 


force is to show, doubtless, that God’s disapproba- 
tion is a very dreadful thing ; but still itis only God’s 
disapprobation that they are brought to illustrate. 
Divested of metaphor, the simple statement is, that, 
if you have not loved him as required, he will both 
disapprove your conduct itself, and express his dis- 
approbation towards you in such a way as will 
make you directly sensible of it. The severe suf- 
fering which this will occasion will arise, not from 
any violence on his part, but only from the glory of 
God himself, and the intimate connexion there is 
between his approbation and the final happiness of 
every intelligent creature. , 

The yuestion properly before us, therefore, is 
whether the disapprobation of God be a disproportion- 
ate recompense for not having loved him supremely. 
This is just like asking whether our not loving God 
supremely is any fauli at all ; for if it be, it would 
seem that disapprobation, must justly follow it, on — 
the common principle of disapproving whatever is 
wrong. This is a case, moreover, in which crimi- 
nality isvery manifest. Hor God has givenus the 
means of loving him supremely ; and if we had 
- not neglected the sense of right which prompted us. 
to it, and refused the consideration by which it 
would have been produced, we should certainly 
have realized the fulfilment of his will. Do this re- 
fusal and resistance constitute no fault, and deserve 
no blame? Then nothing can doso; the very 
words should be obliterated from the language of 
men, and disapprobation in any and every respect 


352 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


forever banished from the world. Were any. ser- 
vant to fail of his duty to us on the same ground, 
. we should reprove him with just severity; nor will — 
our Maker and our Judge be unjust, when, for such 
returns, he shall enter into judgment with us. 
Mark well, dear reader, the conclusion to which 
We arecome. You would fain not give an account 
of yourself to God ; but you have seen that he holds 
you to it bya bond which you admit to be equitable. 
Nor can you lower in the least degree the standard 
f his demand; since you have allowed the rea- 
-sonableness and obligation of loving him with all 
<)> your heart. Neither can you complain of the un- 
wi ‘righteousness of his condemnation ; since you have 
seen, that, if you have not loved bien his disappro- 
bation wil be richly deserved. 

Is it not time for you to consider, therefore, what 
this condemnation is? Know you not that God’s 
disapprobation is set forth by figures of fearful im- 
port, and language indicating it to be the source of 
intense and unutterable suffering? Is not judgment 
at hand? Will its doom admit of any reversion 2 
Is not your state as a sinner dreadful, and power- 
fully adapted to awaken your anxiety % 2 Will you 
hot cry, are you not even now crying, What must I 
do to be saved? © to escape from the wrath to 
come! 


III. 


O Sinner, guilty and condemned! God, who is 
rich in mercy, is not unmindful of your misery. 


” 
oe 


TO A SINNER. 353 


He knew it long before it was discovered by your- 
self, and of his own infinite kindness has provided 
aremedy. He hath so loved the world as to give 
his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish, but have everlasting life— 
This is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the 
sin of the world; for the chastisement of our 
peace was upon him, that by his stripes we might 
be healed. Though he knew no sin, yet was he 
made sin for us, that we might be made the righte- 


ousness of God in him. As he died for our offen-— 


ces, so he was raised again for our justification 5 
and seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for 
us, he is able to save unto the uttermost all that 
come unto God by him. His invitations are most 
ample and excouraging. Hear his call: “Come 
unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, 
and J wil] give you rest ; for him that cometh unto 
me I willin no wise cast out.” 

This is for you good tidings of great joy. Every 
thing needful to your salvation is complete, and 
salvation itself is fully prepared for your possession, 
the gift of free and sovereign grace. You are 
called upon to make no atonement, to shed noblood, 
to offer no expiation; this is all superseded by the 
shedding of the blood of Christ. In order to have 
the benefit of his interposition, you are but to come 
to Christ, or to God through him. You are but to 
repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; for 
upon repentance your sins shall be blotted out, and 
whosoever believeth shall be saved. But you must 


~~ Ut 4 
ry 


354 . PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


do this; for except we repent we shall all likewise 
perish, and he that believeth not shall yet be con- 
demned. 

Nor is this a matter of mere necessity in order to 
your escape from ruin, it is enjoined upon you as 
itself a duty; your failing in which will be regarded 
by God as directly criminal, and more deeply so 
than your primary violation of hislaw. Your not 
embracing the Redeemer, he holds to be a greater 
sin than your not having loved your Creator. This 
is the grand manifestation of character to which he 
now lovks; it is the chief matter which he will 
bring into judgment; and if you should be finally 
condemned, it will be pre-eminently éecause you 
have not believed on the name of the only-begotten 
Son of God. 

You perceive, therefore, dear reader, that you 
are still indispensably called into action. Some- 
thing is prescribed to you, which you must possess, 
or,you are undone. Your future and eternal condi- 
tion actually turns upon this point. This isa state 
of things which may reasonably engage your se- 
vere inquiry. Its aspect on one hand is that of most 
animating hope—you may be saved; but it wears on 
the other an appearance of hard necessity—you 
must repent. 

1. What isit that is thus required of you? 

I need not at present enter further into this ques- 
tion than to say, that it is a stale of mind. The 
phrases coming to Christ, repenring, believing, and 
whatever others may be used in the same reference, 


a ae 


’ 
: 
7 
a 
4 
q 
A 
: 
i 


TO A SINNER. 355 


strictly and uniformly import a state of mind, and 
nothing more. Now this is well worthy of your 
observation. This was what the law of God re- 
quired of you in the first instance; and it is what 
the gospel, with all its riches of grace, requires of 
you in the second: the two methods of divine pro- 
ceeding you perceive to be framed on one and the 
same principle, namely, the perfect equity of requir- 
ing you to possess a specific stale of mind. 

2. But where is the equity of your being thus left, 
and of salvation being poised on the single circum- 
stance of your attaining a prescribed state of mind? 

Observe, then, that you have still the means of at-_ 
taining to any state of mind, to which-suttable and 
sufficient inducements are set before you. The means 
of doing this consist solely in the faculty of consi- 
deration, with a heart that answers to it; both of 
which you have, if you are of sound mind; there 
is nothing inequitable, therefore, in suspending your 
salvation on the attainment of any state of mind, 
if suitable and sufficient inducements to it are ex- 
hibited. We must go on to ask, then, in the next 
place, whether any motives are presented to you, 
suited and sufficient to induce you to repent. 

3. The answer to this question is easy, but it can 
scarcely be brief. The topics adduced in the divine 
word to bring you ro repentance comprehend all 
that is convincing in descriptions of your guilt, or 
touching in the character and aspect of your Ma- 
ker, in the prospect of eternity, in the solemnities 
of judgment, and most especially in the interposi- 


356 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


tion of divine mercy, in the person and by the blood 
of the Son of God. Yet I need not surely enlarge 
on these themes; for, if you should, unhappily, not 
repent, whatever may be the cause of it, I cannot 
suppose you will ever say that you did not know 
reasons enoughwhy you should have repented. 

Let us return, therefore. For, if you have the 
means of atiaining to any state of mind to which 
suitable and sufficient inducements are set before you: 
and if there are set before you suitable and sufficient 
inducements to the prescribed state of mind on which 
salvation depends, then you have the means of at- 
taining that state of mind, and, with it, salvation it- 
self. You are, consequently most equitably treated. 
Salvation is put into your hands; and if you loose 
it, it will be your own fault; it will be because you 
have not done that which you have the means of 
doing. It is quite time, then, that you should 
arouse yourself to action, lest, while you sleep, your 
destruction come. You cannot sleep, and be safe. 

4. I may perhaps imagine your next question to 
be this: But, how am I to attain a different state of 
mind from that in which Iam? A very important 
inquiry, truly, and one most readily answered.— 
You are to produce what effects you please on the 
state of your own mind, by the consideration of to- 
pics adapted to your design ; such topics being sure 
to act according to their nature, if duly weighed, 
and being also sure to aceomplish the object, if in 
themselves sufficient for that purpose. We have 
already seen, that the truths exhibited as induce- 


TO A SINNER. 357 


ments to the state of mind with which salvation is 
connected, are sufficient for that purpose: if there- 
fore, you wish to attain that state of mind, give due 
attention to them, and they will not fail of their ef- 
fect. It is precisely for this effort of attention that 
God himself calls upon you. “O that they were 
wise,” says he, “and would consider these things !” 
Hence also the numberless instances in which he 
requires men to hearken to him, which is accurately 
expressive of attentive hearing: ‘“ Incline your ear, 
and come unto me; hear, and vour soul shail live.” 
This, in truth, may be regarded as the primary thing 
which God demands of you, since he himself has 
so arranged other points, that, if you do this, every 
thing else will certainly follow, which may fulfil 
his commands and secure your own welfare. 

5. Here you may perhaps wish to know more 
particularly what the state of mind, connected with 
salvation is. I have called it, in scripture language, 
coming to Christ, repentance, and faith ; it is also 
called in the sacred word, being reconciled to God. 
All these convey the same general idea of a total 
change of your feelings on religious subjects, es- 
pecially manifested by a submissive acquiescence 
in the way of salvation by the death and righteous- 
ness of our Lord Jesus Christ. The truths which 
are adapted and sufficient to effect this change, are 
contained in God’s holy word; and the considera- 
tion of them which will infallibly lead to this re- 
sult, is nothing more than an honest, teachable, and 
persevering one, such as you very well know the 


¢ 


2 a PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


case to deserve. It does not, indeed, need more 
than a single moment’s realizing view to decide 
your feelings; but certainly you will not have ful- 
filled one half of your duty in this respect, before 
your heart will be broken with penitence, and in- 
flamed with love. 

I will now only ask you, whether this is more 
than your soul is worth? i; Whether, if you perish 
through the refusal of such a method, you will not 
be chargeable with your own ruin, and give your- 
self cause fer bitter and unanswerable reproaches? 
Shall I now leave you to enter your chamber, and 
look full in the face those heart-stirring things which 
are arrayed for your contemplation? The Lord meet 
with you there ? 


IV. 


Perhaps you will assure me, dear reader, that you 
have often thought of these things, and have often 
prayed too, and have not found any beneficial effect. 
Iam not willing to suspect you of an attempt to 
deceive me, but I fear you are deceiving yourselfi— 
First, as to your prayers. Have not many, have 
not all of them, been characterized by formality? 
You may have been upon your knees; but did you 
express any real desire before God? You may re- 
collect many instances in which you know you did 
not; but when, on the contrary, whatever words 
may have passed from your lips, your heart was 
quite vacant of any such desire. Orif you think 


TO A SINNER. 359 


you have at any time expressed real desire before 
God, what have you desired? Perhaps pardon, deliy- 
erance from hell, or some similar blessing ; but you 
have desired them apart from repentance and re- 
conciliation to God. The first object of prayer is 
a new, that is, a holy heart, which is indispensable 
to salvation: Did yon ever desire this? Was it ever 
your sincere supplication that God would break the 
yoke of your unholy passions, and cleanse your 
heart from the iove of sin? You may easily be con- 
vinced, I think, that this never was your desire ; 
neither is it sonow. You have never, therefore, 
put up a prayer that God could listen to fora mo- 
ment. He has never seen youat his throne but as 
a rebel, cherishing your enmity to him, while you 
would fain cover yourself from his deserted indig- 
nation. Isit such prayers that satisfy you? Or is it 
you who complain that you have not a holy heart, 
you who have never desired it 2 

Next, to your assertion, that you have often 
thought of religious subjects without benefit. 

1. Itis only a few of them, I suspect, that have 
engaged your attention. Are there not many as- 
pects of divine things, to which you must acknow- 
ledge you have never given any consideration at 
all? Have you even, at any time, taken the pains 
to inquire, whether there were not some other serj- 
ous and important truths, adapted to affect the heart? 
Most certainly you have not. Your conscience has 
laid hold upon some few of the truths of religion 
which happened to come in its way, and so you 


360 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


have given zhem a thought; but a far greater num- 
ber of the topics fitted to convert the heart, are yet 
to you as things unknown. Look carefully into 
the word of God, and see if it be not so: and can 
you expect so partial and inaccurate a view of truth 
to produce the effect which you profess to desire? 

2. Imay probably say, too, that your attention 
has not been fixed upon the topics most eminently 
adapted to affect your heart. Perhaps some convic- 
tion of outward sin, rather than a view of inward 
corruption; perhaps a thought of the wrath to come, 
without a touching recollection of Him that is will- 
ing to save; perhaps a cherished idea that the vi- 
lest sinner may be saved, apart from the remem- 
brance that the wicked must forsake his way. How 
can such mutilated thoughts as these produce the 
effect you profess to have desired? ‘They much more 
probably minister, by an easy perversion to your 
tranquil continuance in sin. 

3. To this it may be added, that, to the topics 
which have entered your mind, you have given a 
very slender and inadequate attention. You have 
often thought of these things, you say, How often? 
Have you thought of them every day with the 
morning light, and the evening shade; and has the 
savour of them been spread through your busy 


hours? The very question startles and confounds — 
you. By often thinking of religion, you mean that — 


you have thought of it occasionally, once in a few 
months, or a few weeks, or a few days, which is of- 


ten enough for you. And when you do think of 


—- > 


a a 


e 


TO A SINNER. 361 


serious things, how do you think of them? Do you 
set apart a portion of time to entertain them, with 
the advantage of retirement, and a mind with- 
drawn, as far as may be, from worldly vanities and 
cares? Do you then take from God’s own word the 
representations of eternal things, and endeavour to 
bring them home to your heart with their utmost 
power? Have you repeated this exercise every day, 
through any considerable length of time?—I know 
you cannot answer me these questions. You have 
done nothing like this. Your thoughts of religion 
have been only such as have floated across your 
mind amidst worldly concerns, never welcomed, and 
seldom entertained for a moment; thoughts which 
you have been more pleased to forget, than ready to 
recal. Or, if ever you have gone into solitude to 
pursue such reflections, it has been but occasion- 
ally, and you have yielded speedily to the feelings 
of indifference or worldly love, which solicited your 
abandonment of so unwelcome an employ. And 
did you ever expect, that such thoughts of religion 
would be influential? If they were, religion must 
be very unlike to every thing else; for, on no other 
subjects would such thoughts lead to any beneficial 
result. Nor did you ever believe that you were gin- 
ing to religious subjects the consideration they de- 
served. Itis highly probable, that you never even 
asked yourself whether you were paying them a 
due regard or not; and certainly, whenever you 
might have done so, your own conscience would 


have told you that you were not. And yet, though 
x 


362 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


you cannot make any pretensions to having paid 
such a regard to religious subjects as you know they 
deserved, you complain that you have thought of 
them without effect ! 

4. I may charge you with yet a further fault: 

You have shown no willingness to yield to the force 
of such thoughts as may have been brought to your 
mind. When you have been convineed of sin, you 
have not taken up that conviction thus:—‘ Now I 
see that this is wrong; I ought to be sorry for it, 
and loathe it, and humble myself before God on ac- 
count of it. When a thought of eternity has en- 
tered your mind, you have made no attempt to ap- 
ply it, as by saying ‘O, my soul, think of this! I 
am soon to be either in heaven or hell: and what 
manner of person ought I to be? The same might 
be said of every other truth. You have not tried, 
you have not wished, that they should influence 
you; but have felt rather glad to evade their influ- 
ence by forgetfulness, if not to destroy it by invit- 
ing thoughts of a contrary tendency. And can you 
wonder that your thoughts of religion have been 
powerless ? 

5. I will direct your attention to one cireum-~- 
stance more, which will show you that the truths 
of religion are in fact powerful, to the full extent to 
which they are considered. You have never enter- 
tained a thought of religion for a moment, which 
did not produce some efiect. Whenever you have 
thought about it under whatever aspect, you have 
found that it had a tendency to make you se- 


TO A SINNER, 363 


rious, and even anxious; and if you have at any 
time thought of it more closely, or for a longer pe- 
riod, you have found this tendency more strong.— 
What is this, but a decisive testimony to the power 
of religious truths over the heart, as far as conside- 
ration is given to them? Suppose you had carried 
the consideration of them further? Their influence, 
of course, would have been greater. Suppose you 
had given them the full consideration you knew 
them to deserve? Their influence would have been 
greater still; nay, 72 would have been decisive and 
effectual. There is no reason why they have not 
induced you to repent, but because you have treated 
them with consciously unmerited neglect. 
“Remember, therefore, dear reader, that this ex- 
cuse also is taken away from you. If you repent, 
it must arise from reflection ; it can arise from no 
other means, and it will infallibly arise from this, 
The question is, Will you, or will you not attend to 
God’s call? If you will not, his indignation will 
justly follow your rebellious obstinacy. If you will, 
enter into your closet, and consider duly the ob- 
jects adapted to prevail with you; and again, I say, 
The Lord meet with you there! 


V. 


Well, my friend, have you been into your closet? 
I will conceive you dear reader, to say that you have, 
and that you are still prepared to complain of not 
finding the advantages I led you to expect. Have 


364 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


you, then, duly reflected on the solemn truths re- 
lating to your eternal welfare? You cannot, proba- 
bly, say that you have. You have been alone, but 
your thoughts have been drawn aside by other ob- 


jects, and you have not fixed them on divine things 


for even a few moments. Allow me then to ob- 
serve, that zt 1s no wonder the state of your mind has 
undergone no change. This was to result from due 
consideration, and from that alone; but you have 
given no due consideration to serious things, and 
for this reason they have produced no effect. I may 
still maintain, therefore, that dwe consideration will 
he effectual, and might again press it upon you.— 
But if I were to urge you to return to your cham- 
ber, you would perhaps say, It is useless. I cannot 
reflect. Let me know, however, what you mean 
when you say, you cannot reflect. You do not 
mean that the exercise of reflection or considera- 
tion itself is impracticable to you? You canstill 
reflect on matters of worldly business, or give at- 
tention to the affairs of life; only you cannot attend 
to the concerns of religion. Junderstand you then; 
and if is important that you should understand 
yourself. The consideration of religious subjects is 
so unwelcome to you, that your heart shrinks from 
it; your feelings have so much levity and worldli- 
ness in them, that they drive away all serious 
thoughts. Do you call this not being able to reflect ? 
It is surely not being willing to reflect, or rather, be- 
ing determined that you will not. What are those 
light and wicked feelings of yours, that they are to 


ee a 


TO A SINNER 365 
banish matters of the utmost moment from your 
regard, and even to prevent your thinking of them ? 
Or what are you, but a foolish and a wicked man, 
to suffer them to do so? Would you permit similar 
causes to draw you from an examination of your 
worldly affairs ? Why then from an inquiry into the 
state of your soul ? 

You are, however, learning by experience one 
thing, which, though you may have often heard it 
you never knew or believed, probably, till now; you 
are learning the plague of your own heart. Must 
it not be an evil heart, which is so reluctant to look 
even at the things of another world, which refuses 
to be brought at all into contact with them, and 
pertinaciously baffles every effort at consideration, 
by its cherished worldliness and levity ? See also 
to what awful consequences it leads. You are thus 
induced to trifle with your own soul and your most 
important interests, to reject your Saviour, and to 
defy your Judge. You waste time, you forget eter- 
nity, and you leave death, judgment, and hell, to 
come at their leisure, and overwhelm you with un- 
utterable terrors. Are you not amazed at your own 
image ? Resolute trifler that you are, what will be- 
come of you? Whither will this wicked heart con- 
duct you, but to everlasting sorrow ? 

You must not, however, imagine for a moment 
that this reluctance which batlles you, affords any 
justification, or even any excuse, for your inconsi- 
deration and neglect. What is itself wicked can 
furnish no excuse for other wickedness. Your heart 


366 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


is evil, but see to it; for it should be good, and God 
commands you to make itso. “Make anew heart, 
and a new spirit,” says he; Ezek. xviti. 31; and 
again, “Wash thine heart from wickedness,” Jer. 
iv. 14. This command, you perceive proceedsupon 
the principle already stated, that, when sufficient 
inducements to any state of mind are presented to 
us, that state of mind may be justly required at our 
hands, because consideration will infallibly produce 
it. For the correction of your evil heart, therefore, 
you are still thrown back on the necessity and the 
sufficiency of consideration. — 

Yet I would dissuade you from putting on anew 
resolution, and saying, it shall be so no more; you 
will be more thoughtful. Happy should I be to 
think this would be the case; but there are those 


who know more of your heart than as yet you know — 


yourself. It is not worth while to resolve what, in 
a few moments, or in a few hours at most, will be 
undone. The great God, who alone knows the 
heart through all its windings and depths, has as- 


sured us that it is desperately wicked, that there is - 


no hope of its ever resigning its love for the world and 
its enmity to God, without other aid. Men flatter 
themselves often and long that it will; but in this, 
as in all other respects, God is wiser than men, and 
experience proves him right. The fixedness of 
your determination in the love of sin, under what- 
ever disguise it may be concealed, is so great that 
the scripture affirms your conversion to be as hope- 
less as the washing of the Ethiopian, or the raising 


‘ 
a ee en a ee ee 


TO A SINNER, 367 


of the dead. —If you wish to be baffled and undone, 
therefore, continue to deal with yourself as ineffici- 
ently as hitherto; but if you have any desire to es- 
cape from the wrath to come, fall instantly on your 
knees before God, and implore his quickening and 
renewing grace, the grace of his Holy Spirit. This 
is his special remedy for the reigning wickedness 
of your heart, and it is graciously promised. He 
will pour out his Spirit unto you ; he will give you 
a new heart, and put within you a right spirit ; the 
stony heart will he take away out of your flesh, 
and give you a heart of flesh. All will be well then, 
but not till then: and short of that, nothing should 
satisfy you. | 
Remember, however, what you are to pray for.— 
You are to pray, not for salvation, but for the state 
of mind with which salvation is connected ; that is, 
for a change of heart. Do not imagine that prayer 
will save you, or that having prayed you have done 
your duly, and may leave the rest to God. Your di- 
rect, immediate, and indispensable duty is to repent, 
from the obligation and necessity of which prayer 
by no means relieves you: on the contrary, you 
come to pray, because your heart is so wicked it 
will not repent, and to ask God to give you repent- 
ance. Asa wicked heart drives you to prayer, so 
prayer should lead you afresh to grapple with a 
wicked heart, by more vigorous exercises of reflec- 
tion and meditation upon the all-important subjects 
to which, if to any thing, it must ultimately yield, 


od 


368 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


- Remember, too, what an unspeakable mercy it 
is that your way to the throne of erace is yet open ; 
that a condescending Saviour will yet receive you, 
" that, afterall your unwillingness and unworthiness, 
he will’ not cast you out; but rather invites and 
welcomes you as you are, to the fountain of his 
blood and the blessings of his salvation. 

Am I to entertain a doubt whether you will fol- 
low my counsel? Do you hesitate to admit that 
your heart is madly and diabolically evil as I have 
here represented it? Must you try a little more in 
your own strength? Let eaperience then teach you 
if you live to learn its bitter lessons ; but let expe- 
rience teach you, and do not maintain a high opin- 
ion of your good intentions, in defiance of perpetu- 
ated folly and sin! Neither let it be forgotten how 
short a time you may have to try the experiment, 
and how soon he that hardeneth his neck may be 
destroyed without remedy. Remember that this is 
your last hope, and that turning a deaf ear to this 
gracious invitation, you abandon yourself entirely 
to your wickedness, and its dreadful results. Yet 
understand why and how it is that you perish. Itis 
not because you do not pray, but because you do not 
attain a particular state of mind, which you have 
the means of attaining, inasmuch as the truths set 
before you, being duly considered, will infallibly 
produce it. Do not endeavour, therefore, to shift 
the mischief or the guilt to any other quarter.— 
They lie wholly with yourself. Your perdition is 
as much your own act, and you have as truly the 


> 
: 


aly 
TO A SINNER. 369 


means of preventing it, as if you had this moment 
a dagger in your hand, and I were speaking of your 
plunging it into your bosom. Will not all heaven 
weep, and all hell wonder, at the cool and dreadful 
obduracy with which you can perpetrate the deed 
of eternal sorrow 2 


VI. 


May [hope that I meet you now, my dear reader, 
“with great pleasure? I trust you have now been 
into solitude, to seek the Lord. You have implored 
at his hands the removal of your desperate levity, 
and have especially sought the influence of his 
blessed Spirit to open your heart, that you may at- 
tend to the things which concern your eternal peace. 
Has the Lord heard the voice of your cry ? 

If you hesitate a moment in giving me an an- 
swer to this question, it is not because you feel that 
you must answer it in the negative, but only because 
you cannot yet say all that you desire. Your wait- 
ing upon God has not been altogether in vain. You 
begin to see something which hitherto you have not 
seen. ‘There are strange heavings within your bo- 
som; though as yet, perhaps, you seem only to 
learn your own ignorance and hardness of heart, 
and to be more blind and obdurate than ever, so 
that your condition appears to you to be awful in- 
deed. Or perhaps you can say that the Lord has 
softened your heart, and enlarged it inprayer; lead- 
ing you asa lost and helpless sinner to the Saviour’s 
footstool, and inspiring you with hope, if not with 
joy and peace, in believing. 


370 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES 


Whatever the peculiarities of your case may be 
(and there are endless diversities in the operations 
of the same Spirit,) I doubt not you will acknow- 
ledge that you are indebted to the blessed Spirit for 
every measure of beneficial change. It has been 
wrought in opposition to yourself, and in the face 
of long prevalent feelings, which have been broken 
down and brought into captivity to Christ by a pow- 
er consciously not your own, Long did you resist, 
and still would have resisted, had not a gracious © 
friend disarmed you, and laid you low at his feet.— 
If you are now willing instead of unwilling, it is 
because he has made you so, in the day of his — 
power. 

To whom, therefore, have you to ascribe the glo- 
ry 2? Manifestly to him who has wrought the change. — 
It might have been to yourself, if you had shewn ~ 
any disposition towards il, or if you had of your 
own accord made use of the means in your posses- — 
sion; but seing that, with the means in your hands © 
you dbalected the great salvation, and turned from — 
him that called you, what can ever belong to you © 
but shame and confusion of face? All the praise © 
is due tothe God of your salvation. You area ~ 
monument of his mercy, a trophy of his victorious 
grace; and, while time or immortality endures, you 
will have tosay, ‘Not unto me, not unto me, O 
Lord, but unto thy name be glory, for thy mercy’s — 
sake !? 

While self-gratulation is thus destroyed, it is im- 
portant you should learn also the greatness of your 


TO A SINNER. 371 


ebligations. You should neither overlook nor for- 
get, what and how much grace hath done for you. 
It was much that Christ should die for you, and 
that a way should thus be opened for your recon- 
ciliation to God; but was it not hard, too, that you 
would not be reconciled? You wilfully cherished 
and perpetuated a state of enmity towards God !— 
What might he not have done with you? But 
what didhe do? Instead of leaving you to your ob- 
stinacy, he sent his own Spirit into your heart, to 
Weary you of your evil ways, and constrain you 
to seek his face. He himself opened the heart 
Which you locked against him; and the blessedness 
which he has shed abroad there is not of your seek- 
ing, but of his own bringing, unsought. The first 
serious thought you entertained he inspired, and 
dictated the first prayer he uttered. Could he have 
done more or could you have deserved less 2 And 
what does he now deserve of you, buta life of grates 
ful purity and devotedness, immovable and un- 
quenchable for ever? 

At the same time it is worthy of your observa 
tion that the blessed Spirit has wrought this change 
in you in @ method adapted, not to contradict, but ta 
confirm, all your views of primary duty and guilt. 
What he has done may be summed up in this brief 
description ;—he has led you to consideration, and by 
the consideration of divine things has transformed 
your heart. You are conscious that similar con- 
sideration of these things would, at any time, have 
had the same effect ; so ‘that Whatever doubt you 


372 PRACTICAL ADDRESSES. 


may have affected respecting it heiorce, you have 
convincing evidence now, that the means of re- 
pentance and salvation were in your own hands, 
and that your state of impenitence was one of en- 
tire wilfulness and deep criminality. Ah! why 
did you neglect these heart-subduing truths so long? 
With what bitterness and shame have you now to 
look back on that guilty period; and how powerfully 
should the recollection of it animate you, while you 
endeavour to live henceforth to him that loved you, 
and gave himself for you! 


a 
aE, 
BY Coke 


ve 


DATE DUE 


PRINTEDINU.S.A. 


GAYLORD 


